Official Report: Tuesday 23 February 2016

Mr Speaker: The first item of business is the consideration of business not concluded on Monday 22 February.

Yesterday, a valid petition of concern was tabled to amendment Nos 26 and 27 during the Further Consideration Stage of the Employment Bill. That means that, under Standing Order 28, the Question on amendment Nos 26 and 27 could not be taken yesterday and requires to be taken on a cross-community basis.

Mr Speaker: Before I put the Question, I remind Members that amendment No 27 requires cross-community support due to a valid petition of concern.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Employment Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Mrs Michelle O'Neill, to move the Consideration Stage of the Fisheries 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. The debate will be on amendment Nos 1 to 3, which deal with technical amendments to clause 6, and opposition to clauses 1 to 5 and clauses 7 to 18 stand part. Once the debate is completed, any 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 parts of the Bill. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Mr Speaker: The Minister has signalled her intention to oppose the Question that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. With that Question, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 1, 2 and 3, which are technical amendments to clause 6, and the opposition to clauses 2 to 5 and 7 to 18 stand part.

Mrs O'Neill (The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Before I speak on the Bill in general and on my opposition to clause 1 and other clauses, as well as on the amendments that I have tabled to clause 6, I will take the opportunity to thank the Chairperson and members of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee for their scrutiny of the Bill.

The amendments that I propose to clause 6 are minor and technical, but the fact that we have a Bill to consider is a result of the Committee’s agreement to consider the most urgent and important aspect of the Bill, as well as the efforts of the Office of the Legislative Counsel, legal advisers and officials in my Department.

I am, of course, disappointed that the ARD Committee did not have time to consider more of the provisions included in the Bill that was introduced, but I recognise the clear time constraints as a result of the Bill’s late introduction in the Assembly and the finite time left for the Assembly to consider the Bill in sufficient detail. It is for that reason that I have tabled my intention to oppose all the clauses besides clauses 6 and 19.

I am, however, pleased to have worked with the Committee to retain clause 6 on the enforcement of EU rules. That clause will allow us to directly enforce most EU common fisheries legislation as is expected by the European Commission. Given that such measures are directly applicable here, there is little or no discretion available in the implementation by the Department, bound as we are to operate in a way that is fully compatible with EU law. The Commission had asked why such legislation was not already directly enforceable and had threatened to take action as a result of our inability to directly enforce legislation. Thus, the change is essential at this point. I am, therefore, pleased that the ARD Committee has recognised the importance of supporting the clause.

As I said, the amendments that I have tabled to clause 6 are minor and will amend the definition of a relevant fishing boat so that it follows the definition in paragraph 19 of schedule 2 to the 1998 Act and in article 2(2) of the Sea Fisheries Order 2002. This is simply more consistent with other legislation in the North.

Mr Irwin (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development): I will take a few moments to describe the Bill and the work that the Committee did on it. I will then describe the Committee's approach and why we took the step of placing notice of intent to oppose all of the clauses, except 6 and 19, standing part of the Bill.

The Fisheries Bill was referred to the Committee on completion of its Second Stage on 11 January 2016. The Bill, as introduced, contains 19 clauses. The stated purpose is to make provisions regarding the regulation of sea and inland fisheries. It includes powers to allow fisheries offences to be dealt with through fixed administrative penalties and to align sea fisheries enforcement powers with those already in place in England, Scotland and Wales. The Fisheries Bill amends the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, the Fisheries Act 1981 and the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966. It has two distinct remits, namely inland fisheries and sea fisheries. Four clauses are specific to inland fisheries.

The main concern of the Committee was that the Bill was introduced to the Assembly so late in the parliamentary cycle, on 7 December 2015. Easter recess will begin on 19 March 2016, and the current mandate is due to end on 29 March 2016. The Standing Orders of the Northern Ireland Assembly allow the Committee 30 working days from the date of referral to consider and take evidence on the provisions of the Bill. Before the end of the 30 days, the Committee may table a motion to extend that period to a date specified in the motion. However, in this instance, had the Committee taken 30 days, it would not have produced a report until 22 February 2016. Given the current provision in the Assembly for the passage of legislation, such a timescale would not have allowed the Bill to complete its legislative stages before the Easter recess and the subsequent dissolution for Assembly elections. Therefore, the Bill would be likely to fall. To allow the Bill a reasonable chance to complete its passage to Final Stage before the Easter recess, the Committee would need to have completed its scrutiny and report by 15 February 2016, in less than 25 working days.

The Committee also took it into account that a section of the Bill dealt with issues around inland fisheries. Those matters currently fall under the remit of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development therefore requested that that Committee consider and report on those clauses as per Standing Order 64A. However, in order to consider and incorporate the findings of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure into its report, the Committee would have needed to report in a much shorter time frame, probably in and around 20 working days.

The Committee was aware that some issues in the Bill would be difficult to deal with. It was felt that time might be needed to bottom out those issues and get a solution that satisfied all. The Committee therefore had concerns that rushing the scrutiny of the Bill would result in poorer legislation. Ultimately, that would not be in the interest of the fishing industry or the communities that rely on it.

The Committee was also concerned at the urgency with which the Bill was being introduced. It wished to understand why the Minister was seeking to introduce it, given the high risk that it would fall due to lack of time. We were mindful that the Bill could be introduced in the next mandate; indeed, it would make more sense to do so as all the provisions, including those relating to inland fisheries, would fall to a single Committee, namely the new Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Additionally, the Minister omitted certain clauses on aquaculture when she introduced the Bill. We were all aware that they would prove difficult, so this was an attempt to allow the Bill a quicker and smoother passage. The Committee concluded that the clauses could also be included in any Fisheries Bill introduced in the new mandate.

The Committee recognised that some time had elapsed since the initial consultation on the policy provisions of the Bill in 2014. Members were aware that introducing the Bill in the new mandate would also allow the opportunity for the new Department to ensure that the fishing industry and other relevant stakeholders would have ample and proper consultation on the provisions of the Bill.

The Committee wrote to the Minister expressing those concerns and asking for an urgent reply. The Minister, in her response, indicated that the most urgent provision in the Bill was in clause 6. That clause concerns an amendment to section 30 of the Fisheries Act 1981 to allow the direct application of enforceable EU obligations as well as enforceable EU restrictions.

The letter indicated that there had been an inspection by EU auditors in January 2015 of procedures to enforce the EU fisheries control system. As a result, EU inspectors reported that there was no legislative provision to apply the EU fisheries control regulation directly as soon as it came into operation.

To address the concerns of the European auditors, the Department explained that a Fisheries Bill was being developed that would directly apply most EU fisheries regulations as soon as they came into operation. The EU Commission was informed that the Bill, subject to various approvals, might be passed by April 2016.

That correspondence with the Minister allowed the Committee to identify what was urgent in the Bill. However, it was a serious concern that, despite numerous briefings from fisheries officials, it was never made clear to the Committee that a pilot case had been opened against Northern Ireland. In fact, other than a vague line from officials in an evidence session earlier in 2015, the Committee was never formally informed of any problems with the EU Commission or the threat of infraction.

In Committee, members explored whether it was possible to resolve the urgent matter of clause 6 by means of subordinate legislation or in other ways. The Committee agreed to write to the Minister to ask her to consider her options for dealing with this matter. In her reply, the Minister proposed, with the consent of the Committee, to take forward at Consideration Stage only those clauses that the Committee was content that it had time to consider thoroughly. The Minister indicated that if only the provision in clause 6 was considered, she would be grateful to the Committee for having assisted in removing the threat of infraction. At its meeting on 14 December 2015, the Committee agreed that it would consider only clause 6 and clause 19, which is the short title. It arranged its work programme for the Bill accordingly.

The Committee wrote to the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure to inform it of that decision and to confirm whether it still wished to undertake scrutiny of the clauses relating to inland fisheries. That Committee met on Thursday 7 January 2016 and decided that it would be unfair to inland fisheries stakeholders to attempt to rush its scrutiny of the relevant clauses. The Committee and the Minister, as per a joint agreement, therefore tabled notice of intent that all clauses except 6 and 19 not stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6, "Enforcement of EU rules", amends section 30(1) of the Fisheries Act 1981 so that it applies to enforceable EU restrictions and obligations. The clause makes it an offence to catch fish in contravention of any such restriction or to fail to comply with any such obligation. It provides that those restrictions and obligations are directly applicable and enforceable against all relevant fishing boats and persons in Northern Ireland.

Clause 19 is the short title.

The Committee communicated its decision to focus only on clause 6 to those stakeholders who had responded to the initial consultation requesting written evidence on clause 6. It received two written responses, one from the Northern Ireland Fish Producers' Organisation and one from the Northern Ireland Marine Task Force. Neither indicated concerns with clause 6.

The Committee took oral evidence from the Department and the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation on 12 January 2016. The Irish Federation of Sea Anglers was invited to provide oral evidence but had to cancel due to unforeseen circumstances. It provided a short written submission instead.

During oral evidence, the Department informed the Committee that there was little or no discretion available to implement EU fisheries rules and that clause 6 would bring Northern Ireland into line with England, Scotland and Wales. The Committee questioned the Department on the potential for gold-plating. Departmental officials indicated that clause 6 would reduce any risk of gold-plating and allow EU rules to be applied as they arrived. There was nothing else that the Department could do without bringing separate subordinate legislation. Before it would do that, there would be consultation and new regulations. The Committee and the Assembly would have a chance to have a say on those regulations.

In connection with the Bill's general provisions at clauses 16 to 19, the Department clarified the point that, as only clause 6 was to be progressed, there is no need for clause 16, as none of the terms defined in it relate to clause 6. There is also no need for clause 17, as the Department could not envisage any consequential amendments being required to clause 6 or related to clause 6. The Department said that clause 18 is not needed, as the Act as a whole will commence on Royal Assent. Finally, regarding the short title at clause 19, the reduced Bill, with only that clause and clause 6 remaining, meant that the name of the Act could be changed, but there was no strong case to do so either way. The Committee therefore indicated that it was content to keep the short title as it is.

I therefore indicate Committee support for clauses 6 and 19. Likewise, the Committee is opposing clauses 1 to 5 and 7 to 18 standing part of the Bill. The Committee had sight of the three technical amendments to clause 6, but that happened after the Committee Stage was completed. The Committee therefore took no position on the amendments.

Mr McMullan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. One of the provisions in the Bill is that any fisheries infractions can now be dealt with through proper administrative penalties. The Bill will see the fishing powers here brought on a par with those already in place.

Given that the Bill was introduced late, it is worth noting how it was dealt with. I take the opportunity to thank Stella and her staff for all their diligent work, and I thank the Committee for its scrutiny of the Bill. Finally, I thank the Minister, Michelle O'Neill, for her support and help. The Bill will give protection to not only our fish stocks but our marine environment. We in Sinn Féin support the Minister taking forward the urgent parts of the Bill.

Mr Rogers: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill, and I further commend the work of the Committee staff, the Committee and the Minister for bringing forth the alterations and amendments today and for the overall work that has been put into the Bill.

At Second Stage, I supported the broad principles of the Bill, as I believe that the fishing industry remains a crucial aspect of Northern Ireland's agrifood economy and one that is vital to my constituency of South Down. The Bill then at least sought to modernise enforcement powers to create a more coherent approach and to provide legal clarity to ensure a balance between the protection of our natural habitat and the development of our fishing industry. The Bill sought to enshrine the use of fixed administrative penalties for fisheries offences and to bring Northern Ireland more in line with Britain. I warned against not striking the proper balance between protecting our fish stocks and protecting our industry. I was also concerned about the potential for new legislation either to create a bureaucratic nightmare or to be overly zealous in the enforcement of fines. Those are concerns that I was happy to bring to the Committee's interrogation of the Bill.

Legislation is a bit like fishing. It is a tricky business, and, every so often, it will surprise you. During the Committee process, it quickly became apparent that aspects of the Bill such as inland fisheries fall outside the remit of the Committee and that, as such, it would not be appropriate for the Committee to scrutinise related clauses. To make up for that, the Committee called on the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure to undertake scrutiny of the clauses on inland fisheries, which are clauses 10 to 13. Unfortunately, it became apparent that that Committee would not be able to complete proper scrutiny in such a limited time frame.

This highlighted another problem for the Committee, which was that, this late in the mandate, there was simply not be enough time for the Bill to pass through the Chamber with the necessary amount of scrutiny and that any further delay would cause the Bill to falter and fail entirely. Therefore, the loss of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure scrutiny role left the Bill in a precarious position, and the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development believed that a Bill on fisheries would be better served in the next mandate under the expanded remit of the new Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

The Minister, however, explained that the Fisheries Bill included one crucial aspect that needed to be passed as soon as possible and that a failure to do so would be detrimental to Northern Ireland as a whole. The Minister revealed that the Bill was not as robust as it could be, having omitted references to aquaculture entirely; she noted that that was to ensure a smooth passage. As the Bill faltered, it was revealed that the Bill was necessary to comply with EU procedures and to create a parallel legislative provision for Northern Ireland that would apply EU fishery control regulations as soon as they came into effect. Clause 6 brings such provisions to Northern Ireland.

Fortunately, it was determined by the Committee and the Minister that that aspect of the Bill must be passed and, as such, the Committee agreed to focus its scrutiny on clauses 6 and 19 and forgo that all other clauses stand part of the Bill. I believe that that was an appropriate decision when we consider that, following the departmental restructure in the new mandate, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) and its subsequent Committee will have the appropriate remit to deal with all aspects of fisheries, both inland and at sea. I can only hope that I am part of the next Assembly and continue to speak for the people of South Down on this very important matter. Regardless, the Committee determined that it would oppose the Question that clauses 1 to 5 stand part of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 5 relate to sea fishing, the size of fish, the provision of licences and joint enforcement procedures.

The Committee determined that it would support the Question that clause 6 stand part of the Bill, while not specifically taking a position on the amendments. As noted, the clause relates to the enforcement of EU rules and amends section 30(1) of Fisheries Act 1981 so that it applies both to the enforcement of EU restrictions and enforceable EU obligations. The clause essentially makes it an offence to defy such restrictions or obligations. The amendments to clause 6 clear up the language and create a new clarity. In particular, amendment Nos 1 to 3 expand the language of the Bill by moving from "boat" to "vessel", broadening the meaning of fishing vehicles.

The Committee agreed to oppose the Question that clauses 7 to 18 stand part of the Bill. Clauses 7 to 9 relate to penalties under other Acts — the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 and the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 — and offences. Clauses 10 to 13 relate to inland fisheries, which fall outside the Committee's remit. Clauses 14 and 15 relate to fixed penalty notices, and clauses 16 to 18 are general clauses related to the Bill. Finally, the Committee agreed that it would support clause 19, the short title, which is simply a requirement to ensure the Bill's progress.

Many may be surprised to see the Bill, which, if I may say so, seems to be thoroughly gutted, to the point that it now focuses entirely on EU obligations and enforcements. I believe that, in our current context, that was entirely appropriate in order to ensure that Northern Ireland is not punished for infractions. Furthermore, I believe that, while other aspects of the Bill remain entirely necessary, they must be scrutinised fully to allow for better legislation.

Mrs Dobson: I welcome this stage of the Fisheries Bill. After this morning, the Bill will be significantly smaller than that which was first proposed. Whilst I understand the reasons, I am disappointed that the Minister and her officials effectively forced the Committee into adopting this position by giving us so little time for proper scrutiny. It was not the case that the Department was hamstrung by delays with the consultation. Indeed, there was a full year between the end of the consultation in 2014 and the Bill's eventual introduction in the Assembly. In fact, I have still not really heard an explanation for that delay from the Department.

I know that the industry expressed a certain degree of concern about the gap between the consultation and the later progress of the Bill, so perhaps the Minister could explain DARD's reason for that gap. It is regrettable that the Department, with all its personnel and expertise, was unable to bring it forward any sooner. Instead, it waited until the very last opportunity, and that resulted in today's raft of joint opposition to clauses from the Minister and the Committee, which is effectively gutting the original Bill.

Whilst the legislation also sought to ensure adequate protection for our marine and inland aquatic environments, its main priority was, in fact, an apparent last-minute panic to ensure that we meet our European Union obligations and, therefore, avoid the risk of further major infractions. Of course, this is not the first time that DARD's inaction, incompetence or mismanagement — whatever the reality may be — has brought infraction fines to the door of the Executive. Indeed, the Department is still to tell us what recent communication it has had with Europe on that issue.

I am aware that the Commission was made aware in January 2015 that DARD was in the process of bringing forward legislation. However, I wonder whether the subsequent 12-month delay was noticed and whether that is why the Bill, or even just clause 6, could not wait until the start of the next Assembly mandate. Nevertheless, we are where we are, and the Department and Minister clearly think that this clause cannot wait. I, therefore, support the removal of all the other clauses, if only to ensure that the taxpayer is not left footing the bill of further incompetence from the heart of this Executive.

Mr McCarthy: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I will speak in favour of passing the amendments and in opposition to clauses in the Bill. I put on record my thanks to the Committee staff for their help and support in getting us to the Consideration Stage of this very important Bill.

I go along with the comments that were made by the Chairman of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee and other Members who outlined the Committee's attitude to the Bill in its original draft. I concur with the view that it would be much better to introduce a Bill of this scope after the election, when the new Committee will have adequate time to scrutinise it. That scrutiny is valuable because the Bill was a significant piece of work and the fishing industry is so important to us in Northern Ireland.

As someone from the Ards peninsula representing the fishing village of Portavogie, I am aware of the industry's economic value to all the small coastal communities around that area. Such legal reforms need consultation with the communities. As a result, I will vote to remove those clauses listed on the Marshalled List. I am confident that the new Committee will rapidly take to its scrutiny and development role on the Bill.

I am aware of the pressing reasons why clause 6 remains in the current legislative vehicle. There are timing and financial imperatives why it needs to be passed. As a result, I will support its retention.

The fishing industry is a vital component contributing to the economic prosperity of Northern Ireland, and I take this opportunity to thank all those fishermen who risk their lives day and daily and who have stuck with the industry through thick and thin, working in very dangerous conditions to support it. Despite the setbacks that have been endured over the years, there are signs of improvement, and it is vital that the Assembly supports the industry at every level.

I will also support the three amendments to clause 6, which are relatively technical and will improve the current wording.

Mrs O'Neill: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Chair of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee and all the other Members who contributed to the debate. The Chair rightly, I think, reflected the concern of the Committee about how late the legislation came to the Assembly. I absolutely understand that. Of course, the legislation had been in planning for some time. The Executive agreed the policy in March last year. At that time, it could not be envisaged how long the drafting might take and how long it would take to get all the necessary clearances. That said, I am grateful to the Committee for the work that has been undertaken in considering clause 6, despite the limited time available to it, and I hope that all the other outstanding matters will come forward in the near future.

On the issue of EU sanctions, my Department became aware of the problem of potential non-compliance with the common fisheries policy in 2014 and, therefore, included a remedy in a policy consultation for a new fisheries Bill at that time. My officials referred to the risk of Commission action in a presentation to the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee in April 2015 and formally set out the timetable to deal with that in the autumn, which the Commission has subsequently accepted.

As I said in my opening remarks, the amendments I tabled to clause 6 are minor and technical. The changes will simply align the definition of a fishing boat with wording already used elsewhere in legislation.

In closing, I again put on record my thanks to the Chairperson and other members of the Committee for their contribution to the debate. I call on Members to support the amendments.

Mr Speaker: Before I put the Question, I remind Members that the opposition of the Chairperson and the Minister to clauses 1 to 5 has already been debated. I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group those clauses for the Question on stand part.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Fisheries Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister for Social Development, the Lord Morrow of Clogher Valley, to move the Bill.

Mr Speaker: 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 to 6, 8-10, 12, 16-26, 32, 38-43 and 46-51, which deal with the licensing of HMOs. The second debate will be on amendment Nos 7, 11, 13-15, 36, 37, 44, 45, 52 and 53 and the Minister for Social Development’s opposition to clause 83 stand part. Those amendments deal with technical and drafting changes. The third debate will be on amendment Nos 27-31 and 33-35, which deal with the register and information.

I remind Members who intend to speak during the debates on the three groups of amendments that 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 Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If all that is clear, we shall proceed.

Mr Speaker: We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2-6, 8-10, 12, 16-26, 32, 38-43 and 46-51. These amendments deal with the licensing of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). Members should note that amendment No 12 is consequential to amendment No 9. Amendment Nos 18 and 19 are consequential to amendment No 17. Amendment No 21 is consequential to amendment No 20. Amendment Nos 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51 are consequential to amendment No 46. I call the Minister for Social Development to move amendment No 1 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Lord Morrow (The Minister for Social Development): I beg to move amendment No 1:

Nos 2-6, 8-10, 12, 16-26, 32, 38-43 and 46-51.

I should explain at the outset that I intend to comment on the more significant substantive government amendments to address concerns that were raised during Committee Stage. I am also bringing forward a small number of consequential and technical amendments that have arisen. My amendments have been arranged in three groups and have been discussed in some detail during the Social Development Committee’s clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill, apart from amendments to clause 78, which have recently been copied to the Committee Clerk. I am pleased that the Committee was able to support the amendments, and I thank its Chair and members for their constructive scrutiny of the Bill.

The amendments that relate to group 1 are as follows. Two amendments to clause 3 will add seasonal workers to the list of people considered to be occupying a property as their only or main residence. This subsection is solely aimed at those who have some other address that might arguably be their only or main residence. This change will now provide protection for people engaged in seasonal work.

On and after the introduction of the licensing scheme, any properties pending or already registered under the Housing Executive registration scheme will be automatically passported to the licensing scheme for the purposes of regulation. As a result, a pre-existing HMO operating under the registration scheme will not be subject to the same planning controls as a new application. A series of amendments have been made to clauses 9, 20, 21 and 67 to reflect this.

I propose two amendments to clause 10. This clause sets out the matters that are relevant for deciding whether an owner or managing agent is a fit and proper person. My amendments concern the inclusion of the word "locality", because the original draft conflicted with the findings of the 2005 judicial review as landlords have no power to deal with inappropriate tenant behaviour outside the HMO. With the amendments, the word "locality" remains but is now specified in the Bill as extending only to the living accommodation and its associated surroundings. I should say at this stage that the Attorney General has raised one competence issue for clause 10. He would like the reference to immoral purposes removed from the definition of antisocial behaviour at clause 10(7)(b). As this was raised after the deadline for the tabling of amendments, it is my intention to bring this amendment forward at the next stage. I ask Members to note the current amendment on that basis.

I put forward a series of amendments to clause 28. A number of concerns were raised about the process for obtaining a new licence for a change of ownership that may put tenants at risk of homelessness. My amendments will now allow for greater flexibility on change of ownership of a property by building in a specified period of time to obtain a new licence. Following on from the changes to clause 28, a readjustment has been made to clause 29 to ensure that the same practical process for the transfer of a licence will be replicated on the death of an owner.

As a result of a change to the definition of managing agent, on which I will shortly expand further, a number of amendments are proposed for clause 33 to ensure that the full range of HMO management activities are captured.

I further propose a number of amendments to clause 88. My amendments make several changes to the previous draft, which inadvertently captured and required letting agents to be included on the licence application.

A letting agent's duties are limited to viewing and letting the property, which may include collecting the initial first month’s rent and deposit, and therefore it is not essential for the letting agent to be listed on the licence application. Further clarification will be provided in regulations and guidance to assist councils in the operation of the scheme. A further amendment to clause 88 removes the reference to cousin in relation to "relative" in clause 88(3)(c). It is my view that three student cousins living together may have the same risks as three unrelated students sharing. This will reduce the risk of some student HMOs being inappropriately excluded from regulation.

I also propose some amendments to schedule 2. Concerns were raised that having a process of publicly displaying planning notices at the accommodation would single out HMOs, which may have implications for the safety of future tenants. My amendments will remove paragraphs 2 to 6, which relate to the public display of a notice. An additional amendment provides a power for my Department to make regulations and the process to be used for the use of a notice procedure to the making of HMO applications. As this regulation contains a significant level of technical detail, and is aimed at the operational side of the licensing scheme, it is my view that the future process would benefit from further engagement with the councils before its introduction; hence, it is more appropriate for inclusion in regulations than within the Bill.

Mr Maskey (The Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. First of all, I thank the Minister for bringing the Houses in Multiple Occupation Bill to Consideration Stage. I am speaking on behalf of the Committee for Social Development.

As the Minister alluded to, the Bill was a long and complex one for consideration, with 91 clauses and eight schedules. It raised a wide range of issues, some of which were not directly related to the Bill. So, with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, it might be worth saying a few things up front on what the Bill is not about, because of the strength of feeling of a number of residents who have been impacted very negatively by their experiences, but it is not only residents.

The Bill is not about planning matters. In other words, it does not relate to the number of HMOs or any question of over-provision of HMOs in areas. Neither does the Bill seek to deal with antisocial behaviour of tenants in HMOs, although the Committee has made some recommendations relating to that issue in its report, and I will come to those in due course.

The Bill’s purpose is to enable better regulation of houses in multiple occupation. It introduces a system of licensing and new provisions about standards in housing. It also streamlines the definition of a house in multiple occupation and clarifies existing law. The proposed licensing system will mean that a person is acting illegally if they are not licensed to operate a property as a house in multiple occupation. That is a fundamental change to the existing system of voluntary registration and one that, I think, we can and all do very much welcome.

Members will note the high number of amendments to the Bill: there are 54 in total. The Committee had been told that a significant number of the amendments would be consequential, but, at least technically speaking, that is not the case. However, a large majority of the amendments are not substantive, as the Minister said. I will, therefore, be directing my comments on behalf of the Committee to those amendments that are substantive issues.

I am glad to say that many of these amendments were proposed a result of the discussions the Committee had with officials and stakeholders during the Committee Stage. I would like to thank the Department officials for their proactivity in that regard. Explanation and clarification often sufficed in respect of concerns raised by the Committee, and where this did not, the Committee was content with amendments proposed by the then Minister to address those concerns. These engagements were very positive and, in relation to the Department, reflect a mature, collaborative approach between the Committee and the Department to address a complex Bill in a relatively short time. Suffice it to say that the Committee was, therefore, content with the amendments presented by the Department during Committee Stage, and we support the amendments today in the House.

I would like to highlight a number of points that are of relevance to the Bill and to stakeholders by referring to some recommendations the Committee made in its report. I will then specifically address the amendments in group 1.

In addition to agreeing the amendments brought by the Department, the Committee made a number of recommendations in its report. A number of them relate directly or indirectly to addressing the antisocial behaviour of tenants and the responsibility of landlords to assist with that.

Obviously, we all know of, and have heard about, the antisocial behaviour perpetrated, often in the name of students, in houses of multiple occupation. Certainly, there is a strong public perception of it. Everyone has heard about the whole issue in the Holylands in the last number of years. Of course, having been a representative of that area for a number of years, I am very mindful of it. I am also equally struck by the fact that the vast majority of students in those houses are very well behaved and, not only that, are exemplars of good citizenship. Nevertheless, there has been an issue associated with HMOs, and residents have been very negatively impacted by it.

Therefore, to the Committee's mind, the development of purpose-built managed student accommodation has the potential to help address that problem. Well-managed properties, such as those with tenancy agreements that include behavioural standards for tenants, could alleviate the pressure on residential areas where there is currently over-provision of HMOs. Where these should be situated is, of course, a planning matter, although Belfast, for example, has a HMO subject plan which, at least, underpins such planning applications. The Committee believes that this approach should continue, even though such buildings will not be technically designated as HMOs when the Bill is in force.

The Committee also recommends that there should be robust arrangements in all HMO tenancy agreements to help address antisocial behaviour by tenants and seeks the Department’s agreement that this should be included in the guidance to accompany the Bill. Indeed, we have also suggested that the Department should liaise directly with the PSNI and the Department of Justice to address this matter in the time ahead.

The Committee believes that the inclusion of behavioural standards in tenancy agreements must be mandatory to ensure consistency, and that breaching them would be, ultimately, grounds for eviction if the rules continued to be blatantly ignored. The Committee recommends that this proposal should be considered in a wider review of the private rented sector.

Landlords and managing agents should also be required to attend training on any code of practice developed, in order to raise professional standards in the sector. Indeed, the Committee recommends that an accreditation scheme should be developed for landlords and managing agents and that, once such a scheme is established, they must be accredited under it before they can apply for, or be named as, the managing agent on a licence.

Before moving on to the amendments, I point out that the Committee supported a system that was cost-neutral to councils. It would be helpful to get the Minister’s up-to-date position on that matter.

We need to recognise that HMOs are an essential part of the housing sector. They provide comparatively cheap accommodation for people who cannot afford to rent their own place. However, a property that is rented to several unrelated individuals, perhaps for only part of the year, presents health and safety issues, as well those relating to standards. These are the issues that the Bill aims to address. They include, for example, the number of people that the property is suitable for, the facilities in the property, the size of room etc.

I am sure that the vast majority of HMO landlords aim to provide a high-quality, safe environment, with the number of tenants being appropriate to the size of the property, and with the appropriate quality and number of facilities. However, there is sufficient concern about the sector that suggests that a voluntary approach to regulation is far too light a touch and is not acceptable. There has been evidence of poor quality standards in some HMOs which present health and safety risks to the tenants, and legislation is required to address those issues. I, and the Committee, believe that the Bill will help to address those issues.

I turn to the amendments in group 1, which relate mainly to licensing. There are 34 amendments in the group and the Committee is supportive of them all. As I said in my opening remarks, I intend to focus on the key amendments under our consideration.

Amendment Nos 1 and 2 relate to clause 3, which relates to:

The Committee listened to concerns about the absence of seasonal and migrant workers from the clause, and raised that with the Department. The Department indicated that it was always its intent to capture these groups in the clause, based on an assumption that, due to their transient nature, any accommodation could be taken as being their main residence and, therefore, the groups did not need to be specified. However, because seasonal workers may have an address other than their main address — they may stay elsewhere while they are working away from home — the Department decided to amend clause 3 to specify seasonal workers. The Department did not include migrants, as it is assumed that they will have only one main residence. The Committee is content with that explanation and the amendments.

Amendment Nos 5 and 6 relate to clause 10, the "Fit and proper persons" test. The Committee welcomed the introduction of a fit and proper person test to an owner or managing agent of a HMO under clause 10. There were originally some concerns regarding the inclusion of the word "locality" in the clause, which the Minister referred to earlier, and which suggested to the Landlords’ Association that landlords would be responsible for the antisocial behaviour of their tenants, even if that took place outside the curtilage of the property.

The Committee, however, was content that the word locality applies only to a definition of living accommodation as detailed in clauses 2(5)(a) and 2(5)(b). The amendment to clause 10 is a slight reworking of the original clause to refer to "relevant living accommodation". The Committee was content with those amendments, but it had quite a number of reservations. As I said, the incoming Minister will be asked to liaise directly with the Department of Justice and the PSNI to try to resolve these matters on a more satisfactory basis for local residents in particular.

Amendment No 8 relates to clause 20, "Renewal of licence", and it is important. The renewal of licences in areas where there is already over-provision was raised in Committee. In other words, some residents wanted to try retrospectively to reduce the number of HMOs in any given area, and I can understand why. The Bill will allow councils to prevent new HMO licences being issued where there is already over-provision in an area. The argument was made, however, that the renewal of a licence in an area of existing over-provision should not be denied because of that. The Bill does not seek retrospectively to address over-provision of HMOs in areas by denying owners a licence purely because it is up for renewal. That appeared to the Committee to be simply unfair. The Committee was, therefore, content with this and other aspects of amendment No 8.

Amendment Nos 16, 17, 18 and 19 are substantive amendments to clause 26 to ensure that the changes brought about by amendments to clause 28 — "Change of ownership: effect on licence" — take into account all joint ownership cases. New subsection (5) reflects a situation in joint ownership in which a licence transfer occurs as a result of new ownership, and one person who was a licensee before the transfer continues to be an owner after the transfer has taken place. That gives councils the powers to vary a licence in such circumstances following an application to renew the licence by the existing licensee and the new owner. The Committee was content with the proposed amendments to clause 26.

Amendment Nos 20 and 21 relate to clause 28, "Change of ownership: effect on licence". The Bill as introduced did not allow for licences to be transferred when there is a change of ownership. The Committee recognised that that would cause uncertainty for tenants of such a HMO and the proposed new owner. Clause 28, as amended, allows for the transfer of a licence as long as the proposed new owner applies for a licence before the transfer takes effect. A council, of course, still has to consider an application in the normal way, and a transferred licence will cease to have effect at a particular date if a new licence is granted or if the application is refused. That approach, however, at least builds in more time for tenants and a proposed new landlord when there is a question over the licensing of a HMO. This is all about guaranteeing security.

Amendment Nos 22 and 23 relate to clause 29, "Death of sole licence holder: effect on licence". The Committee acknowledged stakeholders' concerns that the three months referred to in the clause may not be sufficient to wind up a licence holder’s estate. The amendment satisfied the Committee that it would afford councils greater flexibility to extend this period if necessary.

Amendment Nos 24, 25 and 26 relate to clause 33. The Committee was content with the amendment that clarifies that it is an offence for an owner to appoint someone to act as a managing agent if that person is not named on the licence and that it is an offence for a person to act as a managing agent if they are not named on the licence. That ensures that the licence must have a bona fide representative named as a managing agent, who will act in a legal capacity for a HMO. The agent must also be named on the register, which should bring greater transparency as to who the responsible parties are for each and every HMO. That is to do with accountability about who owns a property. The Committee, therefore, was content with the clause as amended.

Amendment Nos 40 to 43 relate to clause 88, "Interpretation". During discussions with the Department, officials noted that the original definition of a managing agent would also inadvertently include a letting agent, as a letting agent often accepts the first month’s rent. Subsequently, a letting agent has nothing further to do with the management of a property. Amendment Nos 40, 41 and 43 clarify that issue.

The Committee was content with the amendments and the agreement from the Department to clarify in guidance the requirement to notify tenants who the managing agent is.

Amendment No 42 removes "cousins" from the definition of "relative", and the Minister has already dealt with that. The Committee was content with the amendment.

Amendment Nos 46 to 51 relate to schedule 2. Amendment No 46 makes a significant change to the schedule regarding the publication of an application for a HMO licence. That relates to the information required to be included in the HMO register under clause 62, the amendments to which will form part of the group 3 debate. The key issue in amendment No 46, however, is that the detail required in the giving of notice for making a HMO application will be included in regulation, and that may incorporate the level of information required to be published, how that is to be publicised, the role of the council in the process and the consequence of failing to comply with the requirements of the regulations.
The changes stem from landlords' concern about the level of detail to be included about them in the HMO register and the potential threat to their security. The Committee noted that the Department will consult councils and other stakeholders when drawing up the regulations, which will, of course, come before the Committee for Social Development, or, more appropriately, the Committee for Communities, for scrutiny in the time ahead. The Committee was content with the amendment.

Amendment Nos 47 to 51 are consequential to amendment No 46, and the Committee is content with those. That is all that I have to say as Chairperson on the amendments in the group.

I will now make a couple of brief comments as an MLA. The Committee was very conscious of and alive to the concerns raised by a range of stakeholders, not least the residents whose lives have been very negatively impacted on by the over-provision of HMOs in a number of areas. The Committee listened to all their concerns. As local representatives, many of us have had direct experience of trying to intervene and intercede on people's behalf. Members of the Committee are satisfied with the good work done by the Committee, its officials, departmental officials and the Minister, who took on board if not all the concerns, certainly the vast majority.

We believe that this is a good Bill and, as I said in my opening remarks, a comprehensive one. It is about raising the standards for housing conditions; ensuring maximum accountability for tenants and landlords; and ensuring far greater health and safety for people who live in HMOs. The Bill does not deal with antisocial behaviour per se or the number and density of HMOs permitted in any street, so the Committee has made and will make very strong recommendations that those matters be taken forward with the relevant authorities by the incoming Department.

Mr Douglas: I will make a few comments as a member of the Social Development Committee. I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill to Consideration Stage, and I agree with the previous contributor that there was huge scrutiny at Committee Stage. As a result of that and the Chair's analysis of the amendments, I will keep my remarks to a minimum.

Our party supports the amendments tabled by the Minister and is pleased that, as a result, there will be better regulation of houses in multiple occupation.

I thank the Chair for his leadership and fellow members of the Social Development Committee for the way in which the Bill has progressed. Personally, I found it to be a very positive experience. I see that some of the DSD officials are here today, and they were more than helpful in directing and supporting us to get the Bill to this stage. I thank the Committee Clerk and officials who also guided us along the way.

In my East Belfast constituency, the ever-changing social demography has led to an increase in the demand for HMOs as an affordable housing option in the rented sector.

I certainly agree with the Chair that we come across situations where there are major difficulties. However, I hope that the Bill will provide major change as well as help and support for MLAs who deal with some of these difficult issues.

I want to say a few words about licensing. I am pleased to say that every house in multiple occupation must be licensed under the Bill. That is a huge change. I welcome the introduction of a system of licensing and new provisions on standards in housing that will mean that a person is acting illegally if they do not have a licence to manage a property as a house in multiple occupation.

I agree with the Minister on clause 10, which relates to the fit-and-proper-person test. Those people need to be fit and proper, because many of us have experience of fly-by-night landlords who are not licensed and cause huge problems in communities. I certainly agree with the Minister in relation to clause 10.

This licensing Bill brings fundamental change to the existing system of voluntary registration that I welcome. The Bill will introduce a new mandatory licensing scheme that will bring Northern Ireland into line with other UK jurisdictions. Again, I pay tribute to the Minister for the amendment to clause 88 in relation to relatives. There is the same risk for three cousins living in the same house as three unrelated people sharing the accommodation.

We met a number of residents' groups, including the Holylands residents' group, which raised many concerns. We have tried to take account of some of those concerns in these clauses. Again, I thank the Minister for bringing significant and substantive government amendments to address concerns raised by the Committee, reflecting those of residents. Some of those concerns were also raised by Housing Rights Northern Ireland. I believe — I hope I am right on this — that they raised a number of major issues, every one of which has been incorporated into the Bill.

I am pleased to support all the Minister's amendments. It is good legislation, and it will make a difference.

Mrs D Kelly: I join others in thanking the Committee and departmental staff for their assistance during the passage and consideration of the Bill. Like others, we think that the Bill will make landlords more accountable and protect tenants and the communities in which the HMOs are situated. I would like to put on record our thanks to Minister Morrow and his predecessor, Minister Storey, who tried to work alongside the Committee and have listened not only to the Committee's concerns but to those raised by stakeholders, who also played an important part in enabling us to better understand the impact of the legislation and, indeed, the reality of living in HMO areas.
Our party supports the Bill. We think that it has been a good piece of work. I will speak on one or two amendments in particular, but the Chair did an excellent job of detailing and explaining the Committee consideration of the amendments. We particularly welcome amendment Nos 1 and 2. Amendment No 1 is technical. We are also very supportive of amendment No 2, which is aimed at people who have another address that, arguably, is their main residence. That is particularly the case with seasonal and migrant workers, who are afforded much better protection. We also welcome the fit-and-proper-person test, which is critical. We all know, as representatives, how difficult it is to track down landlords at times. Both the registration of landlords and the additional accountability mechanisms in respect of HMOs will make our jobs and the jobs of others much easier when trying to secure property, and they will ensure that tenants work with the local community and are integrated well into it.

I also welcome some of the concerns that have been raised by landlords. They play an important role in providing a housing mix at a time when there are huge numbers of people on waiting lists. That does not, as others have said, apply just to students. We all know the high costs of accommodation, particularly in our cities. Therefore, we have to listen to the landlord fraternity as well to ensure that people will provide accommodation not only to students but to workers and professionals living in our city centres in particular.

On the other amendments in group 3, while there was significant concern from landlords about the amount of information on the HMO register linking them to their properties, the SDLP believes that access to such information is a matter of public interest, and we agree with the Committee's position that sufficient information should be made available to ensure that residents can address concerns regarding HMOs. The amendments seem to be a good middle ground in ensuring the safety of landlords and their families whilst providing a suitable amount of information to those with a genuine interest in the property. I note as well that statutory bodies will still have access to the full register.

Amendment No 33 inserts a new clause relating to the sharing of information between councils. We believe that giving councils the power to share information amongst themselves for the purposes of carrying out statutory functions will prove to be beneficial to the smooth running of the new HMO system. We all know how the Data Protection Act has in some ways disabled the sharing of information amongst statutory agencies. I think this will give greater clarity about the responsibilities of councils in sharing information to have better safeguards for tenants and local communities.

Amendment Nos 34 and 35 are related to amendment No 33 and insert a new clause into the relevant —

Mr Speaker: Can I point out that those are group 3 amendments?

Mrs D Kelly: Sorry; I beg your pardon. I am ahead of myself.

Mr Speaker: I was trying to catch your eye. We are doing quite well, but you are doing even better. [Laughter.]

Mrs D Kelly: I will cut back later on then, Mr Speaker. Apologies for that. In conclusion — I need not draw this out needlessly — I very much welcome the legislation, the passage of the Bill, the scrutiny and the cooperation and collaboration between the Department, the Committee and, indeed, the stakeholders.

Mr Beggs: I, too, put on record my appreciation of the work of our Committee in helping to coordinate our scrutiny; the departmental officials, who were frequently there to answer many questions; and the range of people who came to give oral evidence and those who provided written evidence. There was a good balance to enable us to take account of all points of view.

Having considered the Bill in detail during the Committee's scrutiny and having received wide-ranging evidence, I continue to support it, its general thrust and the amendments that have been tabled by the Minister. They are largely a result of discussions with the Committee. Many of them are technical amendments that are consequential to some of the changes that have been agreed. There has been a useful engagement between the Committee and the current and preceding Ministers. That has been beneficial in trying to improve our legislation.

Bearing in mind that the legislation is designed to improve the lot of tenants and to recognise the additional risk that occurs with those living in houses of multiple occupation, it is important that there is licensing, which is the main aspect of the group 1 amendments. I agree with others that it is good that there is a fit-and-proper-person measurement to ensure that we have responsible landlords looking after their tenants. I will not comment on every amendment and clause but will just try to pick out some of the key changes.

I notice that amendment No 2 includes:

Again, that could have been an area that would have been overlooked. Risks would have existed to seasonal workers from poor, or even unsafe, accommodation. It is right that we include them in order that they have that degree of protection.

I note the Minister's comment about the Attorney General, and that he intends to leave one of the amendments to a latter stage because of some concerns. Hopefully, that issue can be resolved.

There are several amendments on the transfer of the licence — I am looking at amendment Nos 17 and 20 — which is an important aspect. I certainly view the changes that have been made regarding the transfer of the licence as being beneficial to everyone. It is not in the interests of the tenant or the landlord if a licence cannot be transferred. We have to remember that if it is not able to be transferred smoothly, there will not be permission for the house to remain as a house of multiple occupation. Potentially, some of the tenants would then lose their homes. It is important that, where change does occur for whatever reason — for example, as a result of financial changes with the landlord, or the landlord becoming deceased — there is a smooth mechanism of transferring ownership so that, ultimately, the tenants do not suffer.

Representation was also made to us that, should someone decide to sell the property, it was important that there was a degree of security and that the licence would transfer with that ownership. It is right that we have built that provision in through the amendments. Were that not the case, we might have found that some buildings had to be emptied before they were sold, or there might have been very limited interest in purchasing such buildings, given that there was a great deal of insecurity about what might follow the sale. Again, the new owner will have to pass a fit-and-proper-person test like everyone else.

Amendment No 43 in particular is worthwhile. There is often confusion as to who is responsible for managing an agent, and the Bill helps to clarify that. Amendment No 43 followed a representation being made by some of the letting agents who highlighted the fact — and this is something I was not fully aware of — that frequently a letting agent may just be responsible for the letting. In the past, the tenant might have assumed that the letting agent was also responsible for reporting ongoing maintenance issues to the landlord. This gives clarification that there is such a thing as a letting agent who simply lets the property, with all the maintenance and ongoing responsibility for managing that house still lying with the landlord or his managing agent, who may be a different person. That information will be available to the tenant so that there is clarity and no confusion. That will allow those who have engaged in the letting of properties to continue, but there will be clarity for tenants so that, if they have issues with their property, they must go either to the landlord or to those who have been appointed as his letting agent.

As others have said, we have reached a high level of consensus and a balanced viewpoint. That should bring about improvement in the standards of houses in multiple occupation. Also, it should bring about benefits for neighbours, because responsibility will fall to be managed within the property, very clearly, with regulations there. As others have rightly said, landlords cannot be expected to manage behaviour outside of the property that they own, and it is a reasonable balance that that was not included.

All in all, this is a good piece of legislation, and I hope and expect that it will improve the lot of tenants, bring about a greater degree of clarity and bring about improvement in the lives of tenants and their neighbours.

Mr Dickson: I, too, thank not only the current Minister but his predecessor, our Committee Clerk and officials, and officials from the Department for the work that they did as we prepared our report. I acknowledge the suggestions that were taken up by officials and the way in which the Minister has brought forward all of the amendments. Colleagues from the Committee have already spoken. The Chairperson and three other members have spoken on the value of the amendments, some of which are technical, and others propose changes that are important for the competence of the Bill. I do not intend to add further to that debate. Suffice it to say that the Alliance Party is supportive of the Bill at this Stage and will continue to support it to Final Stage.

Mr F McCann: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I also thank the former Minister and the current Minister for the work that they have done with the Department to bring the Bill to the House today. You will be happy to hear that I had a long-winded, drawn-out speech, but Alex threatened me at the start of the process and said, "Look. Just keep it as short as possible".

Legislation on houses in multiple occupation has been brought to the Assembly a number of times over the past number of years. It is a live issue out there. I think that many people have had concerns about the management, running and conditions that exist in such properties. I happen to believe that we could have dealt with a lot of this back then, but we adopted a light-touch approach when there should have been a more robust effort to try to tackle and deal with HMOs, as there has been with this Bill. I know of many communities, not only in this city but in other parts of the North, that have suffered as a result of mismanagement, poor conditions and being unable to get in touch with landlords.

I went through a number of the amendments, and some jumped out at me. The question of a fit-and-proper-person test is essential in trying to get to terms with some of the difficult problems that exist. The explanatory notes give a fairly detailed rundown on what would be expected or the types of people who would not be fit to be a landlord. The other issue that came across was the terms of the letting agencies and letting agents, and that came through, at times, during the questioning of people who came to the Committee to give evidence and the Department. I believe that this should encompass everybody, but it was explained to us that there may be letting agents whose only contact is the first month's rent and, after that, they have no control.

I had a concern, which I raised with the Department, in and around the private rented sector, because I had viewed them as two sides of the one coin: one may provide multiple lettings, but the other provides single lettings. In the past, both have led to the destruction of the residential nature of many communities in this city because of over-provision. I believe that both should have been tackled at the same time. No matter where you go, whether it is when canvassing or when you bump into people, one of the big concerns that people tell you about relates to how you deal with antisocial behaviour. Whilst the Bill may not deal entirely with antisocial behaviour, there are built-in mechanisms that may allow tenants to go to landlords and expect a return by way of them dealing with the problem.

Sinn Féin obviously supports the Bill. We support the amendments, but we look forward to additional information and an additional Bill coming so that everything will be tightened up and life made easier for tenants and, at the end of the day, landlords.

Lord Morrow: It was interesting to note that everyone spoke on a positive note and was very complimentary. I was just saying to my colleague here that it is a pity that every day is not like this. I suspect that it will not be.

Mr Speaker: Van Morrison might write a song.

Lord Morrow: Yes.

I thank all those who have taken part. I have listened carefully to what they have said. As I said, most of it was complimentary and welcoming of the Bill and what it is trying to do. I believe that it will do all the things that it says and that, as a result, the situation will be better as we go forward.

The introduction of mandatory licensing of HMOs will ensure that higher physical and management standards are adopted before an HMO can be classed as licensed. The policy intention is to prevent new areas becoming overprovided with HMOs in future; it does not have the scope to reduce overprovision in existing areas with an already high number of HMOs, such as the Holylands. My Bill will give a council the discretionary power to refuse to grant an HMO licence if it considers that there is or that the granting of a licence would result in overprovision for the locality. As planning is now devolved to the 11 councils, the Department will liaise with them on the detail of how HMO overprovision can be prevented. The most straightforward way to achieve this is likely to be the inclusion by councils of thresholds similar to those in operation in the HMO subject plan for Belfast in local area development plans.

Turning to antisocial behaviour, which the last Member to speak mentioned, the Committee report recommended that guidance should be completed by the Department to address antisocial behaviour. I can confirm that the guidance for landlords will include model tenancy agreements that will specify and outline acceptable tenant behaviour and detail tenant activities or practices that a landlord would not consider tolerable. Landlords will be encouraged to ensure that tenants are aware of their responsibilities and any possible consequences should they breach the conditions. Antisocial behaviour is also being given further consideration in my wider private rented sector review, which is presently under way. That review will also explore initiatives to raise professional standards in the private rented sector.

In relation to funding, the Department has set up a stakeholder group to take forward the transfer and will work with councils on funding arrangements. A business case will be required to estimate the cost of the transfer of the HMO function to the 11 councils. Councillors will decide how best to deploy the budget as to whether they will each assume the service or agree a suitable shared service delivery model. I will ensure that sufficient resources are allocated to councils for them to operate the new licensing scheme effectively.

Mr Speaker: We now come to the second group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 7, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 11, 13 to 15, 36, 37, 44, 45, 52 and 53, and the Minister for Social Development's opposition to clause 83 stand part. Members should note that amendment No 45 is consequential to amendment No 44, and that amendment Nos 52 and 53 are both consequential to amendment No 20. I call the Minister to move amendment No 7 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Lord Morrow: I beg to move amendment No 7:

Nos 11, 13 to 15, 36, 37, 44, 45, 52 and 53.

Amendment No 7 and the others in the group provide the technical and drafting amendments for the Bill. In revisiting clause 28, as mentioned under group 1, it was noted that, in order for it to operate effectively, a technical alteration was also needed. That has resulted in the amendments to clause 26.

I propose two amendments to clause 78. The need for the amendments has been brought to my attention only recently and, hence, was not discussed at Committee Stage. The policy intent has always been that the power of entry with a warrant would extend to any property outside of the HMOs in question owned or operated by the owner or managing agent. The current drafting of clause 78 would not allow it to operate like that in practice. Two amendments, replacing the words "the" with "any" at lines 15 and 18 of clause 78 will ensure that the clause operates as originally intended.

I give notice of my intention to oppose the Question that clause 83 stand part of the Bill. During Committee Stage, members made it clear that they were uncomfortable with that provision, as it was their view that it might result in a tenant having to continue to pay rent for substandard accommodation. After further consideration, it was noted that the provision was not required as it would be covered under common law in Northern Ireland. The redraft of the Bill now reflects that change.

I have two amendments to schedule 1. I agree with the concerns raised by the Committee and am grateful to it for raising this important issue for buildings that would no longer be treated as HMOs with my officials. The amendments bring housing association and Housing Executive properties that are contracted out to voluntary bodies, such as a hostel or women’s refuge, back under HMO definition. All those types of property hold some of the most vulnerable members of society. It is my belief that they would continue to benefit from being regulated under the HMO regime.

Mr Maskey: I do not intend to say very much on the group 2 amendments. We have covered quite a lot of ground, and the Minister has already referred in some detail to aspects that the Committee raised because most of the amendments are technical and drafting amendments.

I will, however, draw attention to clause 83, as did the Minister, and the Minister's opposition to the clause. The Committee had real concerns about clause 83, which would ensure that the tenancy agreement remains in place, and therefore that the tenant continues to pay rent, even in situations where landlords have not fulfilled their obligations under the legislation. The Committee was concerned that that potentially undermined the rights of the tenant in seeking redress for a landlord's failure to address substandard accommodation. As a result of the Committee's reservations and with reference to the view of the Attorney General that the clause was not required as the provisions are covered under common law, the Department fortunately decided to remove clause 83. The Committee welcomes that and is also content with the remaining amendments in this group.

Ms P Bradley: Like the Chair, I do not intend to speak very long as these are technical and drafting amendments, but, as this is my first opportunity to speak at Consideration Stage, I join my Committee colleagues in thanking all those involved in the HMO Bill. I thank the Minister and, of course, his predecessor Minister Storey for the work that was done. I thank the Clerks, the Department and all those who gave oral and written evidence. It certainly went some way to helping us to form and shape this very important Bill, which we believe is there to protect tenants.

I want to draw attention to what the Minister said about schedule 1 in his opening speech. The amendment will help those with vulnerabilities, especially those in hostels or women's refuges. I am sure that everyone will agree that we welcome that being brought back under HMO licensing, because we know that the HMO Bill is there to protect those tenants. Who do we need to protect more than the most vulnerable in our society? I welcome that amendment.

Mrs D Kelly: I will keep it even briefer, Mr Speaker, and just say that I welcome the Minister's comments on clause 83. He has reflected on the Committee's concerns.

Mr Beggs: On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I want to put on record my support for the general technical and drafting amendments and briefly comment on amendment No 37. Whilst it is a very minor change of the word "the" to "any", it can be quite significant. The change will enable a council to apply to a lay magistrate to issue a warrant. A significant amount of information will have to be provided to convince a magistrate that it warrants such an investigation, but we have to recall that the difficulty or the evidence may not just be in one premises, and widening that to any living accommodation will allow evidence to be collected that may be beneficial to tenants. Therefore, I support that amendment, which would widen court access. Again, it is with a suitable warrant should evidence be available to justify it. I am content with the technical and drafting amendments in this group.

Mr Dickson: I will try to be even briefer, Mr Speaker. I support the amendments.

Mr Speaker: That was very brief.

Lord Morrow: I thank all those who have spoken and been very positive. It makes my job very easy today and leaves me very little to say other than to thank the Chair, the Deputy Chair and all the Committee members again for their very constructive approach. They obviously see the merits in what we are trying to do. I will leave it at that.

Mr Speaker: We now come to the third group of amendments. With amendment No 27, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 28 to 31 and amendment Nos 33 to 35. Members should note that amendment No 30 is consequential to amendment No 29 and that amendment Nos 34 and 35 are both consequential to amendment No 33. I call the Minister to move amendment No 27 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Lord Morrow: I beg to move amendment No 27:

Nos 28 to 31 and 33 to 35.

Lord Morrow: Group 3 provides the amendments to the clause relating to the HMO register and associated information. I am content that my amendments to clause 62 will ensure that an appropriate balance is struck between the public interest in the information publicly available and the safety and security of landlords and their families. The reference to an individual receiving a copy of the register is removed, leaving only access to an extract from the register, and the person making the request must have a genuine interest in the property. Those new amendments will take account of concerns raised, and the arrangements in the new Bill will now mirror that which is in place under the present HMO registration scheme.

My Department intends to provide further clarification in guidance for councils. When examining how councils would operate the HMO register in practice, it was felt that the Bill would benefit from some strengthening. A provision was drafted to ensure the adequate exchange of information between councils for the purposes of HMO regulations. That has been achieved through the amendment that introduces clause 73A.

Mr Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Amendment Nos 27 to 31 relate to clause 62 on the HMO register. The Chartered Institute of Housing, the Landlords' Association NI and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors all voiced concern about the potential threat to landlords' safety should their names, property addresses and contact details be included in the register and made available for public consultation. That obviously generated considerable debate in Committee. The Committee acknowledged the concerns that were expressed but took the clear view that it was a public interest matter and that sufficient information should be made available to ensure that residents can address their concerns regarding an HMO; for example, where there is antisocial behaviour of tenants to the landlord and/or managing agent.

Amendment Nos 27 to 31 seek to strike a balance between those two interests. Amendment No 27, for example, will allow access to an entry in the register, rather than to the entire register. The person must also have a genuine interest in the property, as defined in amendment No 29. Importantly for elected representatives who have regularly been involved in these matters and have to deal with complaints from constituents about HMO-related antisocial behaviour, the Department confirmed that it will also be able to access a relevant entry in the register. That, the Committee believes, strikes the appropriate balance between addressing the security concerns of landlords and providing access to a relevant entry in the register to a person who is concerned with the information in that entry. The Committee is, therefore, content with the amendments.

On amendment No 33, the Committee welcomes new clause 73A, which provides for the sharing of information between councils in respect of their functions under the Act. Amendment Nos 34 and 35 are consequential to amendment No 33.

With that, a Cheann Comhairle, I conclude my comments on behalf of the Committee on the group 3 amendments. We support the amendments.

Ms P Bradley: I will also be brief with my comments. On the new subsection proposed to clause 62, the Minister said that a balance had been struck, and I think that is exactly where we wanted to get to. As the Chair said, there were witnesses who threw up concerns about the clause and how it would affect them. We heard not only from landlords and those who represent landlords but from Housing Rights. Again, as I say, the balance most definitely has been struck. I support the amendments.

Mrs D Kelly: As I pointed out, there has been good collaborative working and a bit of listening has been done. I welcome that balance. This is the way to go to get good legislation. If there is a bit of compromise, everybody gets what they want. It is certainly very good legislation overall.

Mr Beggs: As others have said with regard to amendment Nos 27 to 29, it is difficult to get the balance right in providing information about a house in multiple occupation, such as who manages it and who owns it etc. The original wording was that it would simply be publicly available, but, as indicated by others, representations made to us indicated that there was genuine concern from some about their security. As a result, I am in agreement with the amendments, which will ensure that all residents have straight access to it without any difficulty and others who can show that they are sufficiently concerned with the information in the entry will have access too.

It is a good balance. The information will be available to those who need it, and a degree of privacy will be afforded to landlords.

With regard to the new clause proposed in amendment No 33, I support sharing information between councils. It is a simple thing, but relevant information may be held by one council that would be useful to another. This seems to be starting, in a small way, to do joined-up government. I welcome the amendment and support the other technical and consequential amendments in the group.

Mr Dickson: I wish to be brief on the matter, but I want to refer to the points that Mr Beggs made, particularly with regard to access to information about landlords. It is clear that we should strive to have maximum openness. However, it was reasonable for the Committee to listen to the concerns that were raised. At the end of the day, openness should not equate to nosiness, and it should be relevant to those who wish to have and require to have the appropriate information. We are content to support all the amendments.

Lord Morrow: It sounds like consensus has broken out again. It demonstrates what some have said: when there is collaboration with the Committee, it paves the way for a good end.

I am grateful to Members for their contributions and am pleased with the consensus of support for the Bill across the Assembly. I thank the Chair of the Committee and the Committee members for the positive way in which they have scrutinised the Bill and for, as I explained in my earlier remarks, agreeing to the proposed amendments.

As I indicated earlier, a stakeholder group has been formed to take forward the transfer and will work with councils on funding arrangements, including potential set-up costs. Future monitoring arrangements for HMOs will be discussed and agreed with councils. It is envisaged that a new reporting/governance framework for councils will be put in place. Subject to the successful passage of the Bill, district councils will thereafter need some time to complete the preparations necessary to administer the new licensing scheme. Therefore, the main provisions of the Bill will come into operation on a date appointed in an order made by my Department following liaison and agreement with councils.

That concludes on the government amendments. However, with your permission, Mr Speaker, I will briefly address some recommendations made in the Social Development Committee’s report, particularly those linked to the guidance that my Department is preparing to assist councils with the new scheme implementation. The Committee recommended that the Department provide guidance to address antisocial behaviour in HMOs. I confirm that my Department intends to provide guidance for landlords that will include model tenancy agreements that will specify and outline acceptable tenant behaviour and detail tenant activities or practices that a landlord would not consider tolerable. Landlords will be encouraged to ensure that tenants are aware of their responsibilities and of any possible consequences should they breach the conditions.

Antisocial behaviour is also being given further consideration in my wider private rented sector review, which is under way. That review will also explore initiatives to raise professional standards in the private rented sector. A stakeholder group has been set up to take forward the transfer and will collaborate to publish an appropriate code of practice and guidance for councils, landlords and managing agents to help them meet the requirements of the regulations. I reassure members that my Department will provide the support and funding required for councils to operate the HMO function effectively.

Mr Speaker: The Minister's opposition to clause 83 has already been debated.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Houses in Multiple Occupation Bill, and the Bill stands referred to the Speaker. Thank you all very much.

The Business Committee agreed to meet five minutes ago, so I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The following questions have been withdrawn: 7, 8, 13 and 14. Daniel McCrossan is not in his place to ask question 1.

Lord Morrow (The Minister for Social Development): New housing benefit notifications were launched in September 2015 for new claims and change of circumstances. That followed consultation with tenants' groups and advice sector agencies, such as the Housing Rights Service. The new housing benefit notifications were improved and simplified with a number of modifications, including expanded notes to include illustrative examples of how charges are calculated and explanations of some of the terminology used; clearly showing the amount of rent, rates and housing benefit due to the top of the notification; a single housing benefit notification is now issued setting out the latest circumstances rather than multiple notifications, if changes have taken place; and claimants are reminded in the notes that they can request a formal decision notice or written statement of reason, if required.

Mrs Dobson: I thank the Minister for his answer. I have many elderly constituents who continue to struggle with letter after letter from the Housing Executive, which, despite recent changes, continue to be complex and confusing. That often leads elderly tenants into arrears through absolutely no fault of their own. What assurances can the Minister give that those letters will eventually be provided in plain English to help those who simply wish to live in their home and pay the correct amount each month?

Lord Morrow: I thank the Member for her question and for her supplementary question. I share her frustrations. We all have constituents who come to us confused because they get a lot of literature that is very difficult, at times, to interpret. I can tell the Member that a concentrated effort is being made to regularise and pull all this together into a single document, and I hope that, as a result, she and her constituents will see a marked improvement in the service and that tenants will receive a document that is easily understood. If the Member has a particular case that she wants to talk to me about, I am happy to do that.

Mr Douglas: I thank the Minister for his response. Will the Minister outline to the House the effects of the changes regarding the backdating of housing benefit?

Lord Morrow: I thank Mr Douglas for his question also. In his summer Budget, the Chancellor announced that from April 2016 housing benefit claims would be backdated for a maximum of one month. Under the existing provision, claimants can request the backdating of housing benefit for six months. The decision to reduce the period to one month is in line with changes in GB. When universal credit is implemented later this year, it will provide for only one month's backdating of claims, provided that the claimant can demonstrate good cause.

Lord Morrow: I recognise that certain aspects of liquor licensing law in Northern Ireland are in need of reform. The proposals outlined in the 'Way Forward' report require changes to primary legislation. Since my appointment in January, I have focused on competing priorities such as welfare reform and two housing Bills, and, unfortunately, at this stage, there is insufficient time to progress a Bill to amend the law in the current mandate. Any changes to the law on liquor licensing will fall to the new Department for Communities to consider after the Assembly election in May.

Mrs Cochrane: I thank the Minister for his answer and for engaging with me recently on my private Member's Bill on licensing. During the Bill's legislative progress, it became clear that a number of issues were not consulted on in 2012, such as microbreweries, under-18s on licensed premises and so on. Will the Minister ask his Department to progress a much wider consultation process so that, in the next mandate, better, more modern legislation can be taken forward?

Lord Morrow: I thank the Member for her question. As a result of her work on the issue, a lot of matters have come to a head. There is no doubt that there is a strong case for taking a holistic look at licensing legislation in Northern Ireland. At the expense of repeating myself, however, I have said that that will not be done in this mandate. It will be an issue for whoever is here the other side of the election. I suspect that, in the new mandate, the matter will be given consideration, because it is somewhat overdue. No matter what stance you take, liquor licensing is important. I may not always agree with the Member or other Members on what is the best way forward, but we have to move forward in order to deal with the issue.

Mr Maskey: I do not expect the Minister to project into the next mandate and to speak for people in that mandate. Does he not agree, however, that it is regrettable that, notwithstanding his Department's previous consultations with wider sectors, we have not had a holistic review of licensing legislation in the current mandate, given its importance to tourism and local job sectors?

Lord Morrow: I hear what the Member says, but the House is often accused of not doing legislation. However, the very reason that that legislation is not going through in this mandate is the pressure on the legislative timetable. I am sure that the Member will agree that no Member would expect me to deal with in four and a half weeks what could not be achieved in four and a half years.

Mr Easton: Why has the Minister not brought forward a gambling reform Bill?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Minister may or may not wish to answer that question.

Lord Morrow: I could give the short answer again — lack of time and the pressure on the legislative timetable — but, during the current mandate, my Department was faced with competing priorities, such as welfare reform, which is a very big issue, and two housing Bills, which I referred to. My predecessors and I were therefore unable to progress a gambling Bill as intended.

Mr Dallat: I offer no criticism whatsoever of the Minister, but he will realise that the Executive have had the issue of reform of the licensing laws on their table since 2012. As we speak today, tens of thousands of young people are being told that they have committed a criminal offence because they are on licensed premises after 9.00 pm, when, in fact, those premises are not selling alcohol, have a controlled environment and have staff trained in child abuse issues and all the other things. Will the Minister assure the House that that crazy situation will not last for much longer?

Lord Morrow: I hear what the Member says, and I hear the frustration in his voice. As a previous contributor said, however, I cannot give any guarantee of what the new Assembly will do following the election, because I do not know who will be here.

If someone could stand up today and tell me who all 108 Members will be, I would be interested in talking to them outside the Assembly. The point has been made, and well made, that there is an issue that needs to be addressed. I do not think that anyone, neither I nor previous Ministers, is trying to hide from that. Not least among the issues that need to be addressed is the very one that the Member raises, and there is a responsibility on the future House and Assembly to do so. Like him, I look forward to it being addressed.

Mr McCallister: I hear what the Minister says and am grateful to him for his replies outlining that his difficulty is that there is such a short period left.

I would like to draw his attention to the microbreweries that have grown up over the last number of years. In my South Down constituency, there are a number that really need legislation to make their business viable and make sampling days an attractive part of our tourist product. That really needs to be looked at and I urge the Minister to leave that with his Department and his successor. Will he pledge to do that?

Lord Morrow: I can give the Member one pledge: that I will leave it to whoever comes behind me. I have no bother giving that pledge. I am not quite sure that that is the answer that he wants, but, yes, he has my pledge that I will leave it to the next Minister. We can turn this round 101 times, but we will come back to the same situation, which is the time factor. The point is well made that the matter has to be addressed, and I do not think that anyone is shying away from or in denial about that.

Lord Morrow: At the outset, it is important to state that we fully expect some existing disability living allowance (DLA) recipients who suffer from conflict-related injuries to migrate successfully from DLA to the personal independence payment, now known as PIP, and they will not need to avail themselves of the mitigation measure. I emphasise that the proposal referred to is not from my Department, nor is it mine; it was one of the many mitigation measures recommended by the working group led by Professor Evason, which published its report on 18 January. The report and its recommendations were endorsed at an Executive meeting on 21 January, and I have been asked by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to take forward the implementation of all the report's recommendations.

In her report and in more recent evidence to the Social Development Committee, Professor Evason explained that her rationale for including this in the package of mitigation measures was that it was intended to address a concern that the new personal independence payment assessment may not fully capture the consequences for claimants in Northern Ireland of conflict-related injury, particularly mental health issues. Professor Evason recommended that, in that scenario, existing DLA claimants who are refused the personal independence payment but score four points be awarded an additional four points to confer entitlement to a supplementary payment for one year only — it is not an entitlement to the personal independence payment.

Mr Allister: Whatever the obfuscation about the genesis of the proposal, the fact is that it has been adopted by the Executive and the Minister, and it is he who will bring forward the regulations to implement it. Is the Minister not ashamed that he intends to bring forward a proposal whereby a terrorist — a victim maker — who injured himself by his own hand in planting a bomb will possibly be in the position of benefiting from an extra four points in order to secure and maintain his benefits? If the Minister is not ashamed of that, he should be, because it is an obnoxious and obscene proposal.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Member has asked his question.

Mr Allister: Will the Minister undertake to exempt from the regulations he brings those terrorists with self-inflicted injuries?

Lord Morrow: Let me say to the Member that he may feel that he is the only person in Northern Ireland, and certainly, the only one in the House, who has any conscience on these issues. Let me say this: I suspect that, if you jag us brave and deep, you will find that my views are not much different from yours. However, I suspect the question has more to do with gaining some cheap political points than trying to deal with real issues. Unfortunately, as a Minister, I have to deal with real issues; I do not have the luxury of being critical of everything that comes across my desk. I wish sometimes that I did, but let me assure the Member that, whether there are inadequacies, it is my intention to do everything in my power to ensure that those who are deserving of it, get it, and those who are not deserving of it, do not get it.

Mr Attwood: I ask the Minister to clarify a point he made in his opening answer, when he said, as I understand it, that it was anticipated that some people — some claimants— who had suffered conflict-related injuries would migrate across to PIP. It has always been the assumption, Minister, that the vast majority of people migrating across to PIP with conflict-related injuries would do so. Are you now sending a message to victims and survivors that it will be a smaller, rather than a larger, number of those with conflict-related injuries who will migrate to PIP than was believed to be the case heretofore?

Lord Morrow: Let me make this very clear to the Member: where those who have suffered — the innocent victims — are concerned, there is no attempt on my part or by my Department to deprive them of any benefit they are entitled to. What I want to say to the Member, who at one time sat in a similar seat as I, is this: if he has a case that he wants to talk to me about, let him come and talk to me. I will look forward to hearing about it, but I suspect I will not.

Lord Morrow: I had a very successful meeting with the Member and the chief executive of Shankill (Lurgan) Community Projects (SLCP) on 3 February. Amongst the issues we discussed was an application from the SLCP for social housing enterprise funding from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The application requested assistance for capital renovations of five flats at Mount Zion House that are owned by Choice Housing, as well as funds for furniture and professional fees.

The Northern Ireland Housing Executive informed the SLCP via email on 5 February 2016 that its application was unsuccessful. A letter detailing the decision will follow, outlining the reasons why and how the Housing Executive’s social investments team can engage with it going forward. In addition, I have asked my officials to continue to engage with the SLCP to consider alternative solutions for the five vacant properties at Mount Zion House.

Mrs D Kelly: Yes, the Minister did visit, and I am very grateful to him for spending so much time with the largely voluntary board of Shankill (Lurgan) Community Projects. I am pleased to hear that he will keep his eye on the ball with the progress of this case. There are 150 people in the area of north Lurgan on a waiting list. Does the Minister agree with me that it is of the utmost urgency that the Housing Executive and all others involved in this case put maximum effort into ensuring that these apartments — I think there are 18 in total, with five requiring remedial work — are put back into immediate use to alleviate the severe housing crisis in north Lurgan?

Lord Morrow: I say to the Member that housing is a very emotive issue in Northern Ireland. There is a big demand for social sector housing. We have a waiting list that is running at some 40,000, of which about 50% is stress housing. Where opportunities arise that we can avail ourselves of to ensure that vacant properties are used to the maximum, I have no hesitation in supporting those. I know that it is easy to say that standing here today, and that it is quite another thing to put it into action. However, I give the Member an assurance that this will be looked at and, if it is at all possible and viable to do it, it will be done. There is no merit whatsoever in properties sitting vacant while people are sitting on waiting lists for a long time.

Lord Morrow: With the new state pension being introduced from 6 April 2016 and affecting anyone reaching state pension age on or after that date, my Department has launched a multi-channel advertising campaign that initially ran through October 2015. This campaign has proved successful, showing a significant increase in online activity as viewers sought further information. A second phase of the same campaign was scheduled to take place from 15 February, and, again, will be delivered across various advertising platforms. This phase will run continuously until the end of March.

Mr Newton: I thank the Minister for that information. The Minister will be aware of the concerns right across the community. Can the Minister be definitive about what changes we might actually expect?

Lord Morrow: The Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 makes provisions in relation to the introduction of a new state pension, with an option to allow current pensioners and people who reach state pension age before 6 April 2016 to increase their income in retirement by making a new class 3A voluntary National Insurance contribution. This additional pension amount will be known as state pension top-up. Furthermore, the requirement to have 35 qualifying years' National Insurance contributions or credits to receive the full new state pension amount, the accelerated timetable to increase state pension age to 67, and the introduction of a bereavement support payment and changes to private pensions —

Mr McGlone: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire. Can the Minister advise us what resources will be provided to the advice sector to help people, particularly pensioners and those who are about to be pensioners, work their way through what can often be a very complex maze of entitlements?

Lord Morrow: That is an important issue. Support will be put in place as this rolls out. I say to the Member that, if he has concerns around this one and he knows where there are issues arising in his constituency, I want to hear about them. As an Assembly, we have a duty and responsibility to the elderly in our society. It is well said that a society that cannot look after its elderly and its very young is not a credible society. I stand behind that remark.

Mr Patterson: I thank the Minister for his responses on this issue. Does the Minister accept that significantly more people — up to some 80% of those reaching state pension age in 2016-17 — are not going to have a better outcome under the new system? Would the Minister share my concerns that the change in the restriction on women drawing down from their husbands' National Insurance contributions could result in some not receiving a pension at all?

Lord Morrow: I thank the Member for his question. This is the first opportunity I have had to welcome him publicly to the House. Like myself, he represents probably the best constituency in Northern Ireland, namely Fermanagh and South Tyrone, and I look forward to working with him on issues ahead.

I share his concerns, but I want to say something that I suspect he already knows: pensions are not a devolved matter. They are arrived at in London. Therefore, as a region of the United Kingdom, we are subject to the same pension control and conditions that prevail in London. Therefore, we do not set the rate of pensions.

There was an attempt here some years ago to raise the rate of pensions. I think it was the Alliance Party that came up with a suggestion that pensioners should all have an increase of £5. Not one Member spoke against that until we asked the Alliance Party, "Where will you get the £5?". They said they did not know, and they are still working on that one. That was about 10 or 15 years ago, and they still have not come up with the answer. However, I share the concerns that you voice.

Lord Morrow: The Housing Executive has advised that anyone can buy mobility scooters privately, even if they do not meet the criteria for statutory wheelchair provision. In such circumstances, the Housing Executive would consider providing a ramp, but only after a thorough assessment of need by the occupational therapy service. If the occupational therapist makes a recommendation for a ramp for a wheelchair user, the Housing Executive will undertake the work to the standard specified by the occupational therapist, subject to technical feasibility.

Mr Hilditch: I thank the Minister for his answer. Can he give an indication of the condition of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's stock?

Lord Morrow: I thank the Member for his question. The joint DSD/NIHE Asset Commission has provided the Housing Executive with accurate, comprehensive and robust data on the condition of its stock and a holistic understanding of its long-term future investment needs. As a result, the Housing Executive has drafted a new asset management strategy that sets out its long-term investment approach. That change of direction to adopting active asset management principles allows the Housing Executive to consider its investment priorities strategically in light of the likely funding that will be available and to focus on those assets with a clearly sustainable future through demand and rental income.

Lord Morrow: The Housing Executive has advised that, for insulation schemes in North Down, a cavity wall insulation scheme has been programmed in the Strand Avenue area in Holywood as a result of particular issues arising in properties there. Watts Group plc has been appointed as the consultant for the scheme, and consultation with the residents is due to be carried out within the next two weeks. The Housing Executive then expects to advertise and tender during March and April. The scheme is due to commence on site in May.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): That is the end of our time for listed questions. We move on to topical questions.

Lord Morrow: I thank the Member. I am not sure where he gets his figures or his information from. I understand that Savills has been carrying out a comprehensive report, and I look forward to getting sight of that report. I do not know whether the Member has already got sight of it, but, if he has, he is certainly ahead of me. Let me be very clear: there are very big challenges ahead in relation to housing in Northern Ireland. We will have to be more imaginative in the way that we fund the issue in the future, because there has to be a big change — a step change — in our attitude to social sector housing in Northern Ireland.

Mr McNarry: Being ahead of the Minister is certainly something. Will he say that, as the Housing Executive cannot borrow money and housing associations are already heavily committed financially, he will not propose high rent increases, regardless of whether he has got this report today?

Lord Morrow: The Member puts his finger on the issue. I am not proposing high rent increases. As a matter of fact, within the past few days, I have proposed a zero rent increase. I suspect that there will be those who will criticise me for that, and there might even be those who will say that it is the right thing to do. There is never an easy way forward on this one. I will make a statement in the not too distant future around the whole issue. I am sure that the Member will look forward to that, and he will, undoubtedly, want to ask questions when that day comes.

Lord Morrow: Welfare reform is a very topical subject, and it is something that I have been devoting a considerable amount of my time to since I took over in Social Development, just four weeks ago or thereabouts. The regulations coming from the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order are being prepared by my officials, who continue to work with the Department for Work and Pensions to enable the welfare reform regulations to be taken through Westminster. The first measures are planned to commence in May 2016, with subsequent measures anticipated to commence in June, the autumn and early 2017. I can assure the Member that it is very active at the moment.

Mrs McKevitt: Will the Minister explain, in relation to welfare reform, how people with mental health issues will be assisted when the mobility element is included in the mitigations? That is a major concern for a lot of people in my constituency.

Lord Morrow: That is a very good question too, if I may say so. There are two mobility activities considered in determining entitlement to PIP: planning and following a journey and moving around. Planning and following a journey covers the difficulties experienced by people with learning difficulties, mental health problems or sensory impairment. Furthermore, in such a scenario, people with mental health problems may score four points in the planning and following a journey criterion.

Lord Morrow: I thank the Member for his question. Finlock guttering has been very much on the agenda in my Department of late. This is not a straightforward matter. We are grappling with a combination of two types of ownership: those who own their home and those who rent their home. Very often, while people live in different houses, they live under the same roof. Therefore, we have to work on a solution for how it will be done in a way that creates the least disturbance. The Member will undoubtedly be aware that, during his time as Minister, the problem was also in existence. I know that he worked hard to bring it up the agenda, which he did. I continue to do that to bring a result. It is something that I will concentrate on — I have done so in the past and will do so in the future — to get a solution to this difficult and vexed problem.

Mr McCausland: I thank the Minister for his answer. As he rightly says, during my time with the Department for Social Development, we did not merely get it up the agenda; we actually got it onto the agenda. For 10 years, the Housing Executive had denied that there was an issue of defective guttering. I am concerned that, in the last number of days, it has emerged that 15 houses had their guttering replaced some years ago, which would seem to suggest that, all those years ago, there was an acknowledgement and an understanding in the executive of the nature of the problem; yet, publicly, it persisted in saying that it was a matter of condensation in the houses. Will he ask the Housing Executive to investigate how that happened so that we have a clear understanding of why there was such a long period of denial?

Lord Morrow: The Member makes the point well. I can tell him that I have already asked the Housing Executive to provide a report on that to me. I am aware of the situation as the Member has outlined it. I look forward to receiving the report from the Housing Executive. When I do, I will make it available to the Member.

Mr Swann: I congratulate the Minister. I think this is the first exchange we have had since he took up post.

Lord Morrow: I thank the Member for his question. I am not sure whether I have taken a question from him before, but he has decided to ask a good one. I cannot give him the exact date when that will be, but I will write to him when I get it and make it available to him. Hopefully, that will be with him within days rather than weeks.

Mr Swann: Thank you very much, Minister. I appreciate your efficiency. Have you any detail on whether new claimants will be assessed under the current rules and regulations that are used for DLA?

Lord Morrow: The situation is changing. I am sure that the Member knows that. Therefore, it would be unwise for me to speculate at this moment. However, as I have said, my officials are working virtually night and day to bring the matter forward as swiftly as they can. It is an issue that has to be dealt with in a very expeditious manner. I assure the Member that, just as he might have concerns around it, so do I, as a constituency MLA, because what affects his constituents affects mine, too.

Lord Morrow: I thank the Member for his question. The Housing Executive has advised that, overall, it has 502 properties in Monkstown. The Monkstown estate has benefited from a variety of schemes including external cyclical maintenance, double glazing and kitchen replacements worth a total investment of nearly £2·4 million in the past few years.

Mr Ross: I thank the Minister for that answer. I encourage him to look at the current maintenance need in the area and get speedy progress on it. Specifically with regard to Abbeytown Square in the estate, what money has been spent there and what plans are there for development or schemes in that area?

Lord Morrow: I do not have the amount of money that was spent in relation to Abbeytown Square, but the last external cyclical maintenance scheme was completed in 2009-2010 and the last kitchen scheme was completed in 2013.

Lord Morrow: I thank the Member for her question. In relation to the Dales, which the Member speaks about, I understand that there have been two recent reports. When I talk about recent, I mean one as recent as November 2015 and another as recent as October 2015. I am aware that there are problems with damp, condensation and other issues. Therefore, once the report comes through, which I expect virtually any time, I, too, will want to speak to the Member about it.

Mrs Hale: I thank the Minister for his answer. I know that you have not had a chance yet to visit the Dales to see the dangerous and disgraceful state of them. The Housing Executive has been finding ways to say no to doing any updates rather than finding a way to say yes. I have been to have a look, and it is so bad: there is damp rot and spores are growing on the walls. People should not have to live in those conditions. Windows were poorly fitted 20 years ago, and the heating system does not work, which is forcing people into fuel poverty.

Minister, I want to give you these photographs to show you how bad it is. I cannot believe that people are living in such a state. What can you do to help the residents of Seymour Hill?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Can I highlight to Members that this is not the norm for Question Time? You are entitled to hand information to the Minister, but that can be done outside Question Time. I do not wish to encourage other Members to replicate such actions. Minister, I will allow you an opportunity to answer.

Mrs Hale: I apologise.

Lord Morrow: The Member has handed material to me, which I will look at. [Interruption.]

A quick glance at it tells its own story. As she said, I have not been out on the site, but my predecessor, Mr Storey, has and has assessed it, and he, too, declared that it is a matter of some urgency. Those pictures confirm what Mr Storey and the Member have said.

Lord Morrow: I suspect that rural east Antrim, which he spoke about, is no different from rural Fermanagh and south Tyrone, rural west Tyrone, rural Armagh or any other rural area. Having said that, I suspect that it is not any better than those areas. I assure the Member that there is a continual appraisal of all social sector housing not only in his area but across Northern Ireland. I look forward to getting a report on the condition of our social sector housing not only in his constituency but in my constituency and in the constituency of everyone else represented in the House.

Mr McMullan: I thank the Minister for that answer. The housing stock has not improved in the last 15 or 20 years in the Antrim coast and glens area. Will you look into that because we keep coming up with the only two sites in the whole area, which are not available, and other sites that are? I would be only too happy to have a meeting with you to discuss it. Go raibh maith agat.

Lord Morrow: I thank the Member for his question. The Member could forward to me at the earliest possible opportunity his concerns outlining the estates and houses that he has raised here today. He did not mention them exactly, but he has said that they are on the coast, and I suspect that the coast is a fairly long distance. If he can send me that information or make me aware of it, we will certainly have a look at it and see what has to be done or what should be done.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): That ends the period of questions to the Minister for Social Development.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Questions 4 and 7 have been withdrawn.

Mrs O'Neill (The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Hillsborough forest has over 225,000 visits annually, during which £1·7 million is spent on travel, food and drink. A survey in 2014 found that 88% of visitors rated the forest as very good or excellent; 99% said that they would probably or definitely recommend the forest as somewhere to visit; and 17% thought that the quality of the forest had improved in the past three years. However, 11% thought that it had become worse and suggested a need for toilets, better signposted walks, a play park, and dogs to be kept on leads and not allowed to foul the public areas.

Most visitors therefore think that Forest Service does a good job in Hillsborough, but it is clear that visitors also expect more. Resources are limited, so I have encouraged Forest Service to seek partners to share the burden. That seems to me to be an essential role for local government because most of the benefits fall to local people. I understand that Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council has had some early meetings to consider the potential for improvement, and I hope that that will develop into a more formal partnership.

Mrs Hale: I thank the Minister for her detailed answer and for all the statistics. Given that multiple Departments are involved in the management of Hillsborough forest, can she tell me what discussions her Department has had to ensure that the environmental conditions and the tree health are robustly monitored?

Mrs O'Neill: I think that it is fair to say that we have a very robust plant health strategy in place. Our Forest Service officials are on the ground. I know that, in the past, you have expressed concerns about the forest, and hopefully those have been resolved through the discussion that you have had with my officials.

For me, one of the key positive things that we have been able to develop over the past number of years is to open up our forests to people and to ensure that there is more recreation in them. We have been very successful in doing that alongside our partners, particularly, when it comes to recreation, and working with our local councils. There have been a number of very successful projects, and I hope to see recreation continue to grow and, indeed, flourish into the future. The forest that you speak about has more potential. There is some scope to do work on some of the issues that have been highlighted, but a partnership approach will be very much key to that work.

Mr McMullan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Does the Minister share the concerns of the protesters who are currently protesting against oil exploration at Woodburn forest in Carrickfergus?

Mrs O'Neill: I am aware that there is considerable public interest in the drilling proposals that are ongoing at Woodburn, and it is a matter of record that I am personally opposed to the exploration of fracking. However, to be very clear, forests at Woodburn are managed by Forest Service. They are on land that is owned by the Water Service, not Forest Service. I previously gave a commitment to the House and publicly that there will be no fracking on Forest Service land, and that remains my position. This is a matter for the Water Service and my colleague the Minister for Regional Development to comment on, particularly concerning the arrangements for access by a drilling company. The considerable public interest has shown that people have a legitimate concern about the environmental implications of any such drilling and any proposed action that may come about as a result.

Mr Patterson: Can the Minister provide an update on present staffing levels in Forest Service? Does she accept the concerns of many existing staff about its future ability to manage forests, given the shrinking and ageing workforce?

Mrs O'Neill: First, I am sure that the Member will join me in congratulating Forest Service for moving into his constituency. Last week, I was up there to open officially the new Forest Service headquarters. I am very passionate about decentralising public-sector jobs. Something like 39 staff have now come on to the site, with the opportunity for up to 80 staff to move on to the site over the next number of years. For me, that is a very positive development.

I do not have a breakdown of the age structure of the workforce. I am confident, however, that all that needs to be done is being done and that our staff are on the ground, working with communities, working with their partners in councils and doing everything that they can not just to maintain the plant health of our forests but to open up the forest to wider social and recreational use. I commend Forest Service for making that shift and for working with me, the Department and my predecessor to have a completely different strategy on forests. I think that it has been very successful.

Mr Lyttle: Can the Minister provide an update on the potential Forest Service acquisition of Cairn Wood and assure the Assembly that she will do all she can to ensure that that outstanding natural environment remains within public ownership?

Mrs O'Neill: Forest Service is preparing the business case for the transfer of land that is owned by Water Service at Ballysallagh. It is too early to say what the preferred option for Forest Service will be, but I expect that it will require considerable involvement from partners, particularly Ards and North Down Borough Council, working with the Forest Service to turn that into a reality. I am aware that there is considerable public interest in the matter, but it is for Water Service and my colleague the Minister for Regional Development to comment on the current plans. I understand where the Member is coming from, and I will support that in trying to do all that we can.

Mrs O'Neill: Delivery of the agreed actions in the Executive's response to Going for Growth spans a number of Departments. DARD has a role in taking forward over 40 actions supporting improved animal health and welfare, innovation, market access and environmental sustainability. However, the key action for the new Department is the farm business improvement scheme, which will be delivered via the rural development programme (RDP). The farm business improvement scheme is a package of measures aimed at knowledge transfer, cooperation, innovation and capital investment to improve competitiveness and productivity in farming. The Executive agreed to prioritise the agrifood sector for support and to provide up to £250 million of capital and resource funding over the lifetime of the RDP for the farm business improvement scheme, subject, obviously, to approved business cases and, which is key, industry demand.

Expenditure on the scheme has been profiled out to 2023. It is anticipated that up to £200 million will be available to support on-farm capital investment. Remaining funding will be allocated to the knowledge transfer, cooperation and innovation programmes, which will assist farmers to clearly identify their needs ahead of any capital investment and to make informed decisions about developing their businesses.

My departmental budget allocation for 2016-17 includes £5 million in capital funding to support the implementation of Going for Growth actions, including £2 million for the farm business improvement scheme. The first phase of the scheme — knowledge transfer — launched in November 2015 with business development groups. I was happy to announce recently that all eligible applicants — over 3,200 — would be offered a place in the groups. In the coming weeks and months, I hope to launch further phases of the farm business improvement scheme, including farm family key skills training and support for capital investment. Business cases are being finalised, and schemes will launch as soon as possible once those are approved.

Ms Hanna: I thank the Minister for her answer. How have the recent announcement on renewables obligation certificates and the early closure of the renewable heat incentives impacted on farms that would have sought that funding, particularly in relation to their energy costs?

Mrs O'Neill: One of the biggest challenges in the agrifood sector is that our manufacturing companies in that field pay really high energy costs. NIFDA — the Food and Drink Association — launched its manifesto today, and it particularly picked up on the fact that that is one of the biggest challenges that the industry faces. Thankfully, work is ongoing in DETI, which will, hopefully, report in the next couple of weeks and put proposals to the Executive as to how we can help the industry. I am keen to see that work because, of the continuing challenges across all the agrifood sectors, one of the biggest is the margin that farmers receive for what they produce. If we are going to be serious about trying to improving that margin, we need to look seriously at how we can reduce production costs for farmers, processors and all the people in the supply chain.

In relation to renewable heat incentives, we had that discussion in the House over the last number of weeks. I think that there are implications. Thankfully, instead of an abrupt end to the scheme, some companies have been able to adjust and, hopefully, finish the work that they had contracted to do. There are implications for the wider industry, but we need to be positive about the agrifood industry. We need to embrace the challenges and the opportunities. The chairperson of NIFDA today spoke about positivity and going forward and working together — government and industry — in taking on all the challenges. I am certainly up for playing my part in my Department and in the Executive.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for her responses. When does she hope to open the first tranche of the farm business improvement scheme to applications?

Mrs O'Neill: As I said, we are working our way through the business cases. I am delighted that over 3,200 people have come to the business development groups. That was the first tranche and the first stage of the scheme. I said from the start that we needed to take it forward in a coordinated manner, and that was the best way to do that. As soon as we have the business case, which will certainly be before the end of the mandate, I hope to be in a position to make an announcement on the capital element of the farm business improvement scheme.

Any farmers who are considering making any sort of capital investment on their farm may wish to start thinking about what they will need to do in advance of that, such as assessing the needs of their businesses and getting ready for the scheme when it opens. We are making sure that we disseminate all the information about the capital element of the scheme as soon as it comes forward, and we are very much doing that through working with the business development groups. As I said, I am so delighted to have seen over 3,200 people come forward. It shows that there is a desire in the industry to invest in farms and to look at production to see what farmers can do for themselves. The scheme will allow them to be more productive in the future. It will allow them more collaboration and working with others, and it will have tremendous benefits for the wider farming industry.

Mrs Dobson: When will the Minister provide the detail of the list of eligible items that farmers can apply for under the farm business improvement scheme so that they can begin to prepare for expenditure for later this year?

Mrs O'Neill: As I said, we are working our way through the detail of all that. That is part of the business case. As I have always said to farmers, the rule of thumb is that it will not be like the previous scheme, where there was a list of eligible items; this time, it needs to be a bit more creative in helping people to deliver for products that they need on farm and that will help them to become more efficient. We have been working with the farming industry on the detail, and we have been communicating this as we go through. We have taken a phased approach. I have communicated that message. People are eagerly awaiting the agreement for the business case, when we will be able to go out and say what it is. We will communicate that through roadshows and other methods to make sure we get the message out there on what is available and how you can go about applying. I very much think that the farm business development groups have been key to communicating all that.

Mrs O'Neill: Financial corrections imposed on my Department by the European Union since 2008 amount to €78 million. However, the actual financial cost to my Department is lower, at €59 million, due to the fact that the recovery of overpaid moneys to claimants is taken into account by the Commission. The total amount of disallowance should be considered in the context of the funding that we receive from the CAP. During the period from 2007 to 2013, we received €2·2 billion under pillar 1 and a further €329 million under pillar 2 before any matched funding. Over the 2014-2020 budget period, pillar 1 payments to our farmers will amount to €2·3 billion. In addition, €228 million of EU funds will be devoted to our rural development programme, resulting in a total planned expenditure under the CAP of €2·53 billion.

Mr McNarry: I am somewhat astounded — actually, flabbergasted — by the amounts. These are fines and penalties. The Minister said little about the reasons or whether there had been repetitive failures. Given that she might elaborate on that, can she also tell us what, in fact, she is doing to stop future fines and penalties of this nature?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I think we have done a considerable body of work. If you remember — I have said this to the House on numerous occasions in the past — the reasons for disallowance at different times, particularly in how Europe conducted its audits a number of years later and then applied things retrospectively, has led to challenges. However, year-on-year I can certainly point to improvements and have been able to bring that disallowance down. I do not have a breakdown of the figures, but I am happy to provide it to you. We have certainly been able to make a significant difference in the amounts of disallowance that have been applied.

As I said, I have talked up the amounts that we receive year-on-year here in single farm payments and the rural development programme, and we continue to have a programme in place that will lead us up to 2020 and will see €2·53 billion coming into the local economy. I think we can all be very clear that the farming community needs that and the wider rural community needs it, as it is investment in basic services, rural business and rural tourism. All those factors will benefit us immensely, and the wider rural community will benefit immensely from the contribution of €2·53 billion in planned spend from the EU budget.

Mr Campbell: This is not a question about the EU, as the people of the United Kingdom, in the next three months, will decide that, but the issue relates to our membership of the EU.

The Minister will be well aware, I am sure, of the considerable time that officials in her Department have to spend when they are facing EU restrictions, bureaucracy, guidelines and the fines issues, which has just been mentioned.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Can the Member come to a question?

Mr Campbell: Can she elaborate today or, if not today, subsequently in writing on the timeline for all of her departmental officials to analyse those things to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland?

Mrs O'Neill: I can assure the Member that my officials spend their time making sure that we distribute the funding in as quick a manner as we possibly can. The year-on-year improvements in getting single farm payments into farmers' pockets are very clear; the evidence is there to back up what I am saying.

I often hear this argument about regulations. Anybody who thinks that regulations are going to disappear post-Brexit are absolutely deluded. There will always be regulations in place. If we were to start out tomorrow not as a member of the European Union and wanted to trade with it, we would have to abide by the regulations from Europe to get into that market. It is delusional, to say the least, for people to use the argument that coming out of Europe will mean that there will be no regulation for farmers. Going forward, we need to look at the fact that there is £2·53 billion available for our local economy. [Interruption.]

Where is that money going to be replaced from? I can be very assured —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Order

Mrs O'Neill: I can be very assured that the British Government have no intention of replacing that funding. When I was at the Food and Drink Association (NIFDA) launch this morning, representatives of the agrifood industry here in the North clearly said that the agrifood industry's interests are best served within Europe. They clearly out set the challenges that there are and the implications for trade. They clearly set that out. There is no doubt. If anybody is any doubt, they should pick up a copy of the document, and they will be able to read that for themselves.

As for trade for our agrifood industry going forward, we export 73% of what we produce. We export 90% of the food and drink that we produce into the European market. The implications for our local economy are absolutely immense. Going back to Mr Campbell's question, which he is getting quite exercised about — [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Order.

Mrs O'Neill: I have answered his question, but I will talk to officials about the timelines that he talked about. I think, however, that officials would be best served trying to administer that money and to get it out into the rural economy and farmers' pockets instead of answering silly questions on the length of time it takes to chase up all those other things that he is talking about.

Mr Dickson: Minister, when it comes to fines and penalties, can you tell us who will be paying the fines and penalties if there is, for example, a pollution incident on land at Woodburn forest over which you have administrative control?

Mrs O'Neill: I very clearly set out the situation in relation to Woodburn and the fact that that is an NI Water issue in relation to DRD, which is not within my remit.

Mr Dickson: It is your land.

Mrs O'Neill: No, it is not my land. We take land — I have made that point very clear. Woodburn forest is owned by NI Water. The trees are managed by the Department's Forest Service under a management agreement between both parties. That is factually correct. You can shake your head all you want; it is factually correct.

Mr Allister: This is a side of the EU that Europhiles like the Minister do not like to talk about: the fact that it fines us tens of millions of euros on the administration of our own money that comes back to us. On the question of the strangling bureaucracy, the EU Commission has admitted that the cost of bureaucracy — its regulations on the economies — is 4% of GDP. What does that translate into in terms of the charge on agriculture in Northern Ireland? What is 4% of the GDP, because that is the cost of regulation?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): That question is beyond the original question. Over to the Minister, if she wishes to reply.

Mrs O'Neill: I again make the point that I absolutely agree with the Member's point about European bureaucracy. There is too much red tape, and there are obstacles that we need to address. We need to challenge Europe, and we have been successful in doing that in some instances, particularly in relation to greening around CAP reform. We have a way to go, but that is our job. We should be challenging Europe. We should be out there fighting our corner and making our arguments. We are able and fit to articulate our arguments and to make the case and, through strength of voice, to join with other EU countries, where we can, to do that. To say that there is not going to be any regulation in place post-Brexit is nonsense. There will be regulations in place for the farming industry and the wider rural community on environmental issues and all those things. If we want to trade with Europe, there will be regulations in place and things that we will need to deal with.

I make my point. It is interesting that, in the last number of Question Times, we have quite often had a conversation about the Brexit. I think that that is great. I have continually said that I think that it is good to have that debate, and we will hear a lot more of it in the months ahead. It is very clear that NIFDA, which represents the agrifood industry, said this morning that our place is better in Europe, and the CBI — the business institute for the North — said that we are better within Europe. When we look at all the benefits that come for the agrifood industry and the farming industry, we can see that we are better placed within Europe.

I caveat all that by saying that there are issues within Europe that we need to challenge. I have consistently said that. I am certainly not a Eurofad, but I am up for critical engagement with Europe.

Mrs O'Neill: The Executive agreed that an emergency financial assistance scheme should be developed for non-domestic properties, including small businesses, such as farms, that were affected by the recent flooding. I also intend to extend the homeowner flood protection grant scheme to small businesses, including farms. I have asked the Rivers Agency to develop the scheme and secure the necessary business case approval.

Mr Gardiner: I thank the Minister for her concerns and the interest that she is taking in the situation. However, many farmers in Upper Bann had land that was under water for weeks. It was recently announced that farmers in England would be given support payments worth up to £20,000. Does she think that farmers here are less deserving? What action will she take to assist them financially?

Mrs O'Neill: No. I obviously do not think that they are less deserving. I have made the case, and the Executive have agreed that we will use the £1·3 million that we received from the British Treasury allocation for rural roads and to do some survey work that will look at whether there are any other areas where, for example, the Rivers Agency should dredge. It will look at all those things. The Executive have very clearly recognised that, alongside that body of work, we have committed to looking at supporting businesses and farms that were flooded. I made the recommendation to take that scheme forward on the back of a subgroup of the Executive. We are in the process of doing that with DFP and my Rivers Agency officials.

The Member will also be aware that I recently launched an individual flood protection scheme. I have decided that we should include businesses in that scheme, and we are working up a business case for that. We are very clearly trying to come at it in a way that we can help businesses to prevent flooding in the future by bringing forward that scheme.

Mr Anderson: I thank the Minister for her response. I appreciate the efforts by the Rivers Agency and other agencies during the flooding crisis since the beginning of the year.

Minister, farmers and those who work in farming businesses have told me that, if they have to face something like this again, it could the end of them in farming. It is OK to state that you are putting this and that in place. What consultation are you having with those farming businesses on the ground to help mitigate the greatly damaging effect of future flooding on their farms? It is OK to state that we have certain things to put in place, but will that help them going forward? If it does not, it could be the end game for a lot of them.

Mrs O'Neill: The weather that we are speaking about was extreme weather. So much rain fell over a number of days. You will remember that I announced that there will be two reviews. There will be a technical or engineering review, but there will also be a review on the response to the issues. Part of that will involve the Department commissioning research on the extreme weather and on what else we can do to disseminate that information through the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE). It is about working through our agricultural colleges and with the farming community.

I have visited quite a number of farms that have flooded. I have seen it for myself first hand and have heard the concerns that farmers have about the damage to their land. That is why, in consultation with the Executive, we were able to agree that we should bring forward a scheme that will address the hardship. It will not address all the issues or replace all the land, but it will certainly go some way to help farmers get through a very difficult period and the extreme weather that has caused all the problems. The Executive are working their way through that as we speak. DFP and my Department are working to make sure that we get that money out as quickly as possible.

Mr McGlone: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire fosta. I thank the Minister. Will she confirm that the recently announced and much-vaunted support scheme will not, in fact, be retrospectively applied to those farmers and businesses around the shores of Lough Neagh that were worst affected by the ravages of the floods?

Mrs O'Neill: No, I cannot confirm that because it is not right.

Mr Milne: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Minister, I would like to explore it further. What measures is your Department taking to reduce future flooding risk?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, well we obviously have an ongoing programme of maintenance and upgrading of assets to ensure that existing drainage and flood defence infrastructure continues to protect people and property from flooding. The Rivers Agency also carries out routine inspections and maintenance of designated open watercourses, culverts and culvert inlet grilles. When flood risk is heightened as a result of forecasted heavy rain, the agency increases the maintenance of culvert grilles to reduce flood risk. Open urban watercourses are inspected and maintained yearly, while open rural watercourses are inspected at least every six years.

The Rivers Agency also constructs new infrastructure, where this is cost beneficial, to improve the level of protection to people and to property. The agency has an ongoing capital works programme, which is subject to competing priorities from available funding.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Ross Hussey is not in his place. I call Pam Cameron.

Mrs O'Neill: Tail-biting is one of the most challenging welfare issues within the pig sector. My Department has not investigated the effect that overcrowding has on incidences of tail-biting amongst pigs specifically, but it did commission a literature review to identify practical solutions to reduce tail-biting in pig production systems here.

This review of literature and practices adopted in other member states was undertaken by the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) and involved collaboration across Europe, including case studies with individual pig producers. The presentation of the research report is available on the AFBI website. In addition, AFBI hosted a pig conference in November last year where the findings were disseminated.

The project established that the causal factors of tail-biting in pigs are multifactorial. In most cases, multiple factors, such as stress, environment and genetics, are required in combination to trigger a tail-biting outbreak. However, some individual pigs have a tendency to tail-bite, even at very low stress levels. Therefore, it is unlikely that one solution will solve tail-biting on all farms.

The Europe-wide pig welfare directive, which came into force in March 2009, lays down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. The Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulations 2012 implements the pig welfare directive here. Schedule 8 sets out the requirements for environmental enrichment. This requires that:

Compliance is checked during on-farm inspections by my Department, quality assurance audits carried out by independent inspectors, and quarterly visits by private veterinary practitioners.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for her answer thus far. I ask her to confirm what discussions and communications, if any, she has had with the representatives from the proposed industrial-scale pig farm on the Rea Hill Road, Newtownabbey in respect of such animal welfare issues.

Mrs O'Neill: I have not had any in terms of that application. There will be a planning application going forward, and if we are a formal consultee, I can consult in relation to the information that we have around the standards that we would expect under the legislation that is already in place.

Mrs O'Neill: Following representations from the local racecourses and from bookmakers, I commissioned my officials to review the horse racing fund charges, and a public consultation was launched on 2 July 2015. My officials have given consideration to the 59 responses to the consultation, including two petitions. On 8 February, I had meetings with representatives of local off-course bookmakers and of the two local racecourses. Approval for the new charges will now be sought from the Department of Finance and Personnel, with a view to progressing legislation, which is subject to affirmative resolution, as soon as possible.

Mr Hilditch: I thank the Minister for her answer and update on what is an ongoing issue. Will the Minister give us some indication of how she and her Department are helping to sustain the excellent facilities that have been created at Down Royal and Downpatrick racecourses?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. We obviously have the excellent College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) campus in Enniskillen, which focuses on equine issues, such as equine breeding, equitation and farriery. The racing units in Enniskillen campus provide excellent resources to support the delivery of its learning provision. The campus horse racing and equestrian clubs are also used to support equine programme delivery, and the students regularly compete in point-to-point races and other equine competitions, including at the Balmoral show. So, it is a case of very much so, in terms of the expertise that we are developing, and that is working with the industry.

I know that the industry is keen to know the outcome of the consultation, and I intend to make that decision and to talk to DFP and have that through over the next number of weeks.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): That is the end of the period for listed questions, and we now move on to topical questions.

Mrs O'Neill: The Member will know that I have been very active on this issue for quite some time. There is a natural trend in the dairy sector in which prices fluctuate and where there is a trough. Unfortunately, the latest trough has continued for a significant period. He will know that I have led delegations to DEFRA in England and that we have been to Europe on a number of occasions and were successful in achieving an additional £5·1 million cash flow for the industry. That is the issue that we are dealing with here. The dairy sector has a positive future, but there is overproduction, and the Russian market is not buying. A combination of factors are coming together to create a perfect storm that is prolonging the cash flow issue for the dairy sector.

I continue to host the dairy forum, which held a meeting last week and which brings in key dairy stakeholders. We brought in the banks and the HP companies, and that is something that I have done on a number of occasions over the last 18 months in order to try to work with the sector. Clearly, my challenge to Europe remains; we need to continue to push for the review of intervention prices. We also need Europe to extend the intervention rates that are already in place. I have agreed with the industry that that is another job of work, and I, and David Dobbin from the industry, have written to Europe in relation to that.

We continue to work with the industry on the challenges that are there, but it recognises that this is very clearly a cash-flow issue. The banks have a key role to play, and I am particularly engaged in challenging them to be creative and to create payment holidays and capital holidays, and I will continue with that body of work. I discussed it again this morning. What we need to be doing is a daily topic for discussion, and I am working very closely with the industry to help where we can do so.

Mr I McCrea: If the information I have received is correct, which is that the prices have still not bottomed out, and given that the Minister and people in the industry have made a commitment to write to Europe, will she go to Europe — I appreciate that the weeks are running out in the time before the election — to put that plea to the European Commissioner to ensure that something is done before farmers who are currently struggling go out of business?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, as I said, I recently wrote to Phil Hogan again about the intervention rates and the length of time they are going to be in place. This will be discussed at an EU Agriculture Council meeting in the next number of weeks and I intend to be there to make sure that we make a very strong case. Again, we do it collectively, along with our Scottish counterparts, DEFRA in England, and Rebecca Evans and her team in the Welsh Government. We come at this by making a very strong case for why our industry needs this support at this time. We need that intervention at a European level, but at a local level we also need the banks to be flexible and we need them to work with the industry.

For my part, in terms of what I can deliver, it is about making sure that I get payments into farmers' pockets as quickly as possible. I achieved that and delivered on it, with just over 97% of people now paid. There are a few cases still to be resolved for various reasons but I continue to do all that I can, working in conjunction with the industry, and I think that that is recognised in the industry.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Questions 2 and 3 have been withdrawn. Chris Hazzard is not in his place.

Mrs O'Neill: This is my last Question Time in this mandate. In five years in the post, we have been very effective in what we have delivered for rural communities. One of the biggest challenges has been CAP reform, making sure that we made our way through that, and addressing the historical imbalance that was there. The outcome we got was fair; it was something that commanded a lot of buy-in across the industry in that it gave people a run-in to allow farm businesses time to adjust. We can certainly claim CAP reform as a success going forward. In particular, the fact that we have been able to achieve the largest-ever rural development programme has produced significant benefits for the rural community, the farming industry and the environment.

For me, since taking up office in the Department, we have recognised that it is an economic Department but also that it needed to deliver on three fronts: the environment, the farming community and rural areas.

I think that we have certainly been successful in doing that. On tackling rural poverty and social isolation, I am delighted to be able to bring that project forward and make such a difference to everybody in rural communities, from small community groups right up to the work that we are doing to get people access to water and the work that we are doing with our networks in trying to upscale the community groups to go after other funding sources. We will continue with that programme.

Decentralisation as a whole has been a very positive project, with the headquarters going to Ballykelly, and all the other decentralisation programmes that helped to create a fair distribution of public-sector jobs, which helped to rebalance the economy. That is something that was taken forward that I can be very proud of. We have recently broken into new markets, such as China; that is significant for the pork industry. We continue to make headway in breaking into other markets, with a number of inspections coming up this year.

The Rural Proofing Bill, which we are hopeful is about to enter its Final Stage in the next few weeks, has been a significant achievement and will make a lasting impact on rural communities, as all Departments, councils and the arms-length bodies for community planning —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Minister is over her two minutes.

Mrs O'Neill: — will have to rural proof and make sure that they take into account the needs of rural dwellers when making policy decisions.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I ask Members who wish to have conversations to do so quietly and to have the courtesy to let others listen to the Minister's answer.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for answering. I want to commend her for an excellent five years in office in the leadership that she has shown the Department. What does the Minister believe will be the strategic priorities for the Department as we move towards the next mandate?

Mrs O'Neill: As the new Department is created, it will allow for improvements in how we move forwards. We will be able to shape things differently, particularly with the inclusion of Environment in the new DAERA. That will be a welcome realignment and might even allow for improvements in inspection regimes, as well as hopefully removing some of the red tape and bureaucracy of a number of inspectors, for example, coming on to farms. I think that it will be a good opportunity for the new Department. It will take a bit of time to bed in, but I am sure that it will happen over the next few months.

The ANC is out for public consultation, and I encourage farmers to get involved in the debate on what it will look like in future. Rural broadband is still a priority; DETI has invested significantly, but there are still too many "not spots", there are too many rural people who cannot get access, and where they can get access the speed is not good enough. DARD still has a role to play in bridging that gap and in supporting rural communities in getting access. Just today, I heard of a business that is considering moving out of a rural area because it cannot get access, and it is no good for them to stay there. That is something that those of us in the Executive need to take on.

One of the things that I announced in recent weeks was my intention to make part-payments this year. We have improved things so much that we could make advance payments later this year if more farmers apply online. Therefore I encourage everybody to get that message out; we need about 70% of farmers to apply online for it to happen.

A key thing that we can do to assist the agrifood industry is open up new markets, because all sectors are struggling; prices are low, margins are low, and as an Executive, one of the things that we can do is provide stability. We can sell our wares, we can talk to the rest of the world about what we have to offer, and we can open up new trade and market opportunities that will allow us to advance on the good relationships that we have built with, for example, China, the United States and others. I would like to see the tackling rural poverty and social isolation programme go forward.

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

Mrs O'Neill: I wonder if you mean in relation to members attending the business development groups. For clarity, is that what the Member asked me? If you apply to go on a business development group and you take part, there is a payment made to you as an individual farmer that allows you to, maybe, employ someone to be on-farm while you are off-farm.

Mrs McKevitt: I thank the Minister for her response. What discussions have DARD officials had with the gardaí and the police? Does the Minister agree with me that a multi-agency approach would be a way forward with those groups to develop their communication skills to get out information on farm safety, rural broadband and any available funding?

Mrs O'Neill: I think that you are referring in particular to rural crime. There is an ongoing programme of work between the PSNI and an Garda Síochána on what we can do to tackle those things together. The cross-border task force is also in place, and it is looking at how we can tackle some of those issues together.

There is a very close relationship between the PSNI and the Department's enforcement team, particularly the veterinary officials who can identify animals. There is therefore a good body of work ongoing. Across this island, in both the Health and Safety Executive and its equivalent in the Twenty-six Counties, there is a significant body of work being done on health and safety. At the recent North/South Ministerial Council meeting, Minister Coveney and I reaffirmed our commitment to having a single messaging campaign, because it is the same whether you live in Cork or Tyrone. Health and safety challenges are there for everybody. In particular, we are working together on how we can use the same messaging, get out the PR and drive home the message in schools — to young people in particular — in order to change that mindset. You need to think safety first.

Mrs O'Neill: The Member knows that I view the Department very much as an economic one. We have a strategy in place to grow the entire agrifood industry, in its all sectors. Targets are set for them all.

One of the challenges that exists for all sectors of the industry is the fact that there is not fairness in the supply chain. That is one of the issues that I have tried to address. We have a fantastic product and farmers who produce food to the highest quality. We have something that we can market and that has a clean, green image. We can go around the world and market it very easily. However, what we need to do, when we look to the future and the potential for the markets, is to have farmers who continue to produce food. To do that, we have to work with the industry and challenge the unfairness in the supply chain. I have established a Supply Chain Forum, which looks at changing relationships, from the farmer right through to the processor and the exporter.

My commitment to the agrifood industry is on record. The Year of Food is a brilliant opportunity for us to market what we have. A lot of work is planned for throughout the year. I have attended a number of events already. This morning, I attended a NIFDA event, at which we referred to the Year of Food and the tremendous opportunity that it gives us to market what we have, which is a fantastic product.

Mr Dallat: I listened very carefully to the Minister. Perhaps, gazing into the crystal ball to the future, she will acknowledge that the cooperative movement was the one organisation that gave farmers hope for the future. It goes on to do so, in co-ops such as LacPatrick. What encouragement is the Minister giving to farmers to form more cooperatives that give them a fair price and take them out of the clutches of the large supermarkets that continue to offer derisory prices for their produce?

Mrs O'Neill: The Member makes a fair point. Under the new rural development programme, there are going to be good opportunities for farmers to come together to collaborate. I agree with you: I think that farmers are stronger in groups and working in a cooperative. Anything that I can do to encourage that, I am certainly up for. However, built into the new rural development programme, there are opportunities for farmers, if they so wish, to work collaboratively across a number of projects. In particular, one of the areas that is open to them is whether they want to look at cooperative initiatives.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): We are coming near the end of our time. Gordon Lyons may ask a brief question.

Mrs O'Neill: I can assure you that, whoever he is, he is in the minority. I cannot talk about the specific case. Everybody's case is different. I do not know what information the individual has provided to the Department, but, if the Member wants to drop me an email or come and chat to me about the case, it is no problem. Across the Chamber, however, I cannot comment on an individual case that I do not know anything about.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): That is the end of Question Time. I invite Members to take their ease for a few moments while we change the staff at the top Table.

Lord Morrow (The Minister for Social Development): I beg to move

The Housing (Amendment) Bill is short, but it is, potentially, very effective enabling legislation. Its provisions are necessary to support the empty homes strategy and to address antisocial behaviour and disrepair in the private housing sector.

Before I move on to briefly highlight the Bill’s key elements, I thank the Chair and members of the Social Development Committee for their scrutiny, which has helped to strengthen and improve the Bill.

Clause 1 makes provision for information sharing relating to empty homes. I am determined to maximise all opportunities to meet housing need, reduce blight and tackle antisocial behaviour. I see the rejuvenation of empty homes as an important means of achieving that.

To enable contact to be made with owners of empty homes, with a view to bringing such properties back into use, the Bill will provide for relevant information held by the Department of Finance and Personnel’s Land and Property Services (LPS) for the purposes of rate collection to be shared with my Department and/or the Housing Executive. That proposal was included in my Department’s housing strategy, which was subject to public consultation in 2012. At the request of a former Minister of Finance and Personnel, the Bill will also require my Department and the Housing Executive to provide Land and Property Services with relevant information — for example, when any properties listed as vacant appear to be occupied or have different owner details.

The clause aims to help to meet housing need by bringing empty homes back into use. The Social Development Committee suggested that information-sharing arrangements with utility companies would help the Housing Executive to identify empty properties for the purposes of dealing with tenancy fraud. I agree that that could be helpful, and I can confirm that my Department is considering proposals for tenancy fraud legislation, which, I believe, should include proposals for information sharing with utility companies.

The Social Development Committee also highlighted the fact that the Bill does not make provision for information sharing with councils. I note that the Committee has agreed that the most appropriate vehicle for any provisions relating to information sharing between my Department, the Department of Finance and Personnel and the councils would be local government legislation rather than this Bill. I hope, however, that the wider issue of information sharing with the Department of Finance and Personnel can be considered by the new Department for Communities.

Clause 2 makes provision for disclosure of information relating to antisocial behaviour. The Bill aims to ensure that, when the Housing Executive or a registered housing association need information in order to take action against an individual who has been involved in antisocial behaviour, any person who holds such information will be able to disclose it without breaching data protection legislation.

The Social Development Committee highlighted the fact that the Bill does not make provision for information sharing with private landlords. I recognise that private landlords have a legitimate interest in any information that reflects on the good character of individuals who are seeking accommodation in the private rented sector. It appears, however, that human rights and data protection considerations would effectively preclude extending the disclosure provisions in the Bill to private landlords.

My Department recently published proposals for a review of the role and regulation of the private rented sector and has asked for views on the sharing of information between social and private landlords. It is considering the responses it has received.

Clause 3 makes provision for registration as a statutory charge of certain loans. While the Housing Executive has the power to register statutory charges for most forms of grant assistance, there is no power to register charges for a grant by way of loans. The absence of a power to register charges for any such loan means that the Housing Executive would have to either make unsecured lending or secure the lending by means of a legal mortgage/charge. The cost of the latter is substantially more than the costs associated with preparing and registering a statutory charge. The Bill, therefore, makes provision for the registration of a statutory charge for grants by way of loans made under article 9(1)(a) of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. That would provide a means of security against any such lending and would ensure that, were an owner to default on the loan or sell or transfer the property, the Housing Executive would be made aware of the transaction and would be able to take any necessary action to recover any debt.

I have outlined the three provisions of the Bill. I believe there is a need for these proposals, and I am confident that they will be well-received by the relevant stakeholders in the public and voluntary sectors. On that basis, I hope that all parties can give the Bill their full support. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Mr Maskey (The Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. On behalf of the Social Development Committee, let me say that the Minister has given a fairly comprehensive report on the content, substance and intent of the Bill. I thank him for bringing the Bill forward, following on from his predecessor, Mervyn Storey.

The Committee obviously very much welcomes the fact that we are at the Final Stage of the Bill, and we fully support it. It establishes important provisions, particularly on the sharing of information, which has been outlined, on empty properties and the disclosure of information relating to antisocial behaviour. While it is true that there was some considerable toing and froing on these aspects of the Bill, the Committee was ultimately satisfied with the Department's clarification and rationale for the provisions. I thank the departmental officials for that very diligent work and their support for the Committee in its deliberations. I will put on record, as stated in an earlier debate, the very positive working relationship that we have had with the Department throughout the legislative process and the response of the then Minister and the current Minister to the Committee's concerns, particularly on clause 2, which he amended at the request of the Committee. I also acknowledge the contribution of our stakeholders, particularly Housing Rights, whose expertise proved invaluable in the Committee's deliberations.

During our consideration of the Bill, a number of other matters were raised by and at the Committee. In general, those were about the regulation of the private rented sector. However, the Bill, as already outlined, was not the vehicle to deal with those. Similarly, Members will note that the House considered the Houses in Multiple Occupation Bill earlier today, and issues relating to the regulation of the private rented sector also arose during the Committee’s consideration of that Bill. The Committee, therefore, welcomes the Department’s current review of the role and regulation of the private rented sector and, indeed, will be briefed on that at its meeting on 3 March. I think it is important to put that on the public record on behalf of the Committee so that people are aware that it has taken very seriously the whole question of antisocial behaviour and the need to regulate fully the private rented sector.

We hope that the review sets the stage for the incoming Department for Communities to take this important issue forward in the new mandate so that appropriate regulation can be established for a sector that, as we all know and appreciate, is expanding here, if nothing else.

With that, let me say that the Committee for Social Development supports the Bill at Final Stage.

Mrs D Kelly: On behalf of the SDLP, I will speak in support of the Bill. It is a welcome piece of legislation. As the Chair of the Committee outlined, concerns were raised about antisocial behaviour, the sharing of information and some of the definitions.

Those have been taken account of in the legislation as far as practicable. I congratulate the Minister and his predecessor on their work and on the collaborative approach taken by Departmental officials. I also thank Committee staff for their assistance to the Committee in its scrutiny of the Bill. These amendments will produce a much better Bill that certainly reflects the concerns raised by stakeholders.

Mr Beggs: Both I and my colleagues in the Ulster Unionist Party wish to indicate our continuing support for the Bill in its final form.

The sharing of information is important, and not only between the Departments of Finance and Personnel and Social Development and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which has been authorised with regard to empty properties, but also with regard to antisocial behaviour, which, it has been authorised, can also be shared with registered housing associations. There was a discussion in Committee about wider sharing, but as with everything, there needs to be a balance, and concerns were raised about how to ensure that that information did not get into inappropriate hands. On balance, then, we have got it right on antisocial behaviour information.

I would like to highlight, once again, the Committee's recommendations on information sharing in its report. There is a need to continue to look at how the Department and central government can engage with local government, and there is a recommendation that such consideration be taken forward in the new Department to help address the issue of vacant property, but also with particular reference to where fraud may be occurring. If there were protocols to take forward the issue of information sharing with utility companies, that would be an important area of work going forward. If someone has a social house inappropriately, someone else is homeless because they are misusing the system. We all need to try to ensure that what resources we have are used appropriately and go to those in genuine need. Therefore, I ask the Minister to ensure that this issue is kept under consideration.

The Bill also enables the registration as a statutory charge of certain loans. This is a new mechanism to enable public support to be advanced to allow those in need to bring about improvements. The statutory charge would be made against the property. I suspect that it is very early days, and lessons may well need to be learnt. Nevertheless, it is an important option to have available.

In conclusion, we wish to indicate our continuing support for the Housing (Amendment) Bill and thank all who have been involved in getting it to where it is.

Lord Morrow: I do not think that there is very much more that I want to say, other than to thank those who have contributed to the debate. I note that there has been a consensus in support of the Bill. I commend it to the House.

Lord Morrow (The Minister for Social Development): I beg to move

I seek the Assembly's approval to make this order under powers conferred by the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008. If affirmed, the order will disapply section 86 of the Act for designated religious charities from 1 March 2016. Section 86 provides for certain persons to be automatically disqualified from being a trustee of a charity, including those who have been convicted of any offence involving dishonesty or deception, adjudged bankrupt and not discharged, or removed as a trustee of a charity on the grounds of misconduct or mismanagement.

To give some background to this issue, the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 includes provision for "designated religious charity" status to take account of the unique structures within some faith-based charities in Northern Ireland that have supervisory, disciplinary and governance arrangements in place to deal with issues that may arise. An example of this is a faith-based charity that is made up of a head council and a range of congregations. The congregations would be component charities that have their own board of trustees that are ultimately under the supervision of the head council. That head council would be able to remove trustees of the congregations where necessary under the organisation's rules or constitution.

Religious designation is designed to ensure that charity regulation is proportionate, in accordance with the structures already in place within some faith-based organisations, while ensuring that the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland retains the necessary regulatory powers, for example, the power to institute inquiries and take appropriate action. Religious designation is not granted automatically. It is up to charities to consider whether they wish to apply for designation and provide evidence that they meet the conditions set out in the legislation. To be designated, the organisation must satisfy the criteria set out in the Charities Act, one of which is that it has an internal organisation with supervisory and disciplinary functions over component elements, including the board of trustees and other constituent parts.

Once granted designated religious status, such a charity will be exempt from sections 33 to 36 of the Charities Act, which cover the powers of the Charity Commission to act for the protection of a charity, suspend or remove trustees, appoint an interim manager, or give specific directions for the protection of a charity in respect of the administration of the charity or its property. Such a charity will, therefore, have to demonstrate to the Charity Commission that it has suitable arrangements covering all of its component parts to suspend or remove a trustee, officer, agent or employee in order to safeguard the charity; assume control over the management of the charity for a limited period of time; put additional trustees in place as necessary; and stop an individual from being a member of a charity.

It is important to stress at this point that the order being debated today is not about the granting of designated religious status or whether such organisations should be treated differently. That debate has already occurred, and that principle was established when the Assembly passed the Charities Act 2008. What is intended by this order is that this already established principle is extended to include section 86. The disapplication of this section will allow a designated religious charity to manage its own disciplinary issues in relation to disqualification of trustees without any secular interference, and it is in line with a similar exemption in Scotland.

All the major Churches have made representation with regard to the introduction of this order. They all point out that their internal structures and hierarchies dictate that trustees will often and uniquely have a pastoral role within the Church in addition to their work as a trustee, which they would be automatically disqualified from fulfilling should section 86 apply to them. They also point out that, should that person wish to continue to serve, section 87, which falls out of section 86, will mean that they are in fact committing a criminal offence by continuing to serve as, for instance, an elder in the Presbyterian Church.

Members, I do not believe that it was ever the intention of the House when it passed the Charities Act to so interfere in the internal running of Church affairs and to bar anyone from serving in a pastoral role within their Church if that Church deemed them fit to fulfil such a role.

I believe that the risks associated with the order are minimal. If we look to Scotland, where they have similar legislation, we see that their regulator has reported no issues of concern. More importantly, the Charity Commission will retain its powers to conduct inquiries into designated religious charities and may withdraw religious designation where it feels that the criteria are no longer being met or where, as a consequence of a statutory inquiry, it considers that it is no longer appropriate for a charity to be designated. Reasons for that could include the failure of a charity to act responsibly in deploying its own internal disciplinary and supervisory functions.

The order is a natural extension of the easements already provided for in the Charities Act. It is a proportionate approach to regulation, and the safeguard of the ultimate sanction lies with the Charity Commission, thereby presenting little risk to government or public confidence in the charitable sector. My Department has considered section 24 of the Northern Ireland Act and is satisfied that the order is not incompatible with any of the convention rights or community law and does not discriminate against a person or class of persons on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion. It also does not modify an enactment in breach of section 7 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Mr Maskey (The Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development): I thank the Minister for bringing forward the statutory rule.

It is fair to day that the Committee has given the matter extensive consideration, holding two evidence sessions with the Department for Social Development and one with representatives of Church organisations. As the Minister has indicated, this is about the fact that the Act makes general provision to disqualify a person from being a trustee of a charity, whereas the statutory rule is meant to disapply that, if you like, and exempt Church organisations from that requirement.

The Committee had a prolonged discussion with Church organisations on the matter. The original issue for the Churches appeared to be who should have the power to remove a trustee from a designated religious charity. However, as was pointed out to the Churches, they are already exempt from the provisions in sections 33 to 36 of the Act, and therefore they, not the Charity Commission, already have that power.

The discussion moved on to the internal governance of Churches and the wider range of responsibilities that may be held by ministers, priests, laypeople and so on and the impact that being removed as a trustee would have on them in their wider role in the Church. The governance arrangements would mean that they would likely have to be removed from those responsibilities as well.

Many would accept that Churches are highly unlikely to knowingly appoint a person to a board of trustees of a charity who has been convicted of a crime that would ordinarily render them unsuitable for such a position. However, in short, there was a principle under discussion regarding the delineation of responsibilities between Church and state, which the Minister has addressed, and the maintenance of transparency in the operation of a charity in order to give confidence to the public. The question raised was this: are we simply giving preferential treatment to Church organisations, or do we have an appropriate level of accountability within the proposed new arrangements? Members should note, however, that the Charity Commission still has the power to de-designate a religious charity and that all the requisite accounts have, of course, to be filed.

The Committee also considered that there was an equivalent exemption in place in Scotland, and the Department has advised that there have been no issues relating to the exemption there.

In the end, the Committee considered that there are sufficient checks and balances in place to allow the disapplication of section 86 of the Charities Act 2008 to designated religious charities here. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the statutory rule be affirmed by the Assembly.

Mr Douglas: I rise as a member of the Social Development Committee to speak in support of the order. I thank the Minister for bringing it forward. He mentioned being an elder in the Presbyterian Church: I declare an interest as a member of the Westbourne Presbyterian Church — the "Shipyard Church", as it is known locally.

I agree with the previous Member: we have had some lively discussions on the issue. As the Minister stated, the order disapplies section 86 of the Charities Act, which deals with the automatic disqualification of persons acting as a trustee of a charity, for designated religious charities. I should also point out that we have had representations from all the main Churches. That has been very helpful. There was a good discussion with them. Many questions were asked, and I reckon they gave the best answers.

For me, the order extends the easements that were appropriate, due to the unique structures in some faith-based organisations. That is what is unique about the order. These are unique structures in faith-based organisations. The Committee has recognised that. The order is certainly in line with similar easements for such organisations in Scotland, for example. I think that there are seven of these designated charities in Scotland. All faith-based charities in Northern Ireland can apply for designation. It is not granted automatically. They must satisfy all the criteria set out in the Charities Act, including, as the Member who has just spoken said, the filing of their accounts on an annual basis. The order is also about having an internal organisation with supervisory and disciplinary functions, as well as important management functions.

It is also worth noting that the Charity Commission will retain its powers to conduct inquiries. That is another important aspect of the order. I agree with the Minister: when we passed the Charities Act in, I think, 2008, it was never the intention to interfere in the internal running of Church affairs.

In conclusion, I believe that the risks associated with the order are minimal. As stated, there is similar legislation in Scotland. We spoke to a number of Church people, and it is worth pointing out that there have never been any issues or problems with the easements in Scotland. I support the order.

Mrs D Kelly: On behalf of the SDLP, I support the order. As others have said and as the Chairperson of the Committee outlined, there was considerable debate around the order and the pros and cons of supporting it. Public confidence in how charities are run and in their accountability and transparency is of the utmost importance. Despite these austere times, people in Northern Ireland still contribute to charities substantially more, per head of population, than any other region. Therefore public confidence in charities and in the regulation of charities is of the utmost importance. At the same time, I recognise that there has to be some flexibility to take account of the different types of charities and those associated with Churches. I support the order.

Mr Beggs: First, I declare an interest as a committee member of Raloo Presbyterian Church. One of the aspects of our discussions here today is the role of Church and state in regulating internal affairs. My understanding of what is proposed is that it is an argument not about whether someone who is in an inappropriate position should or should not be removed but, essentially, about who should, ultimately, take that decision. When I look at the submission of the Church leaders' group, I see that they have indicated that they would prefer that it be the Church that would take the necessary steps if it identified a problem. Of course, if that does not occur, there is the ability for the Charity Commission to step in and carry out a detailed investigation and ensure that, ultimately, appropriate action is taken. I certainly see this in the context of whether the state should be able to take that decision automatically. Like our local Churches, I would prefer that, as is the case in Scotland, where there is an appropriate body in a religious organisation and that has been accepted, the decision should be left with it.

Again, I will highlight the fact that we are following the provisions that have been utilised in Scotland. As the Minister said, no issues have arisen to date; therefore, accepting the proposals seems to be a reasonable way forward. I would like to indicate my support.

Mr Dickson: I, too, wish to declare an interest as an elder in Greenisland Presbyterian Church. That having been said, I, like Mr Beggs, feel that the regulation is proportionate to the needs of the Church; it meets a very specific balance between the roles of Church and state. I am also satisfied that the Charity Commission is not being excluded in any way as a result of the enactment of this piece of legislation, but rather that it retains overall control while, within that, allowing the Churches — and it is more than one — to regulate themselves to the same standard as that which would be expected by the Charity Commission. I am therefore happy to support it.

Mr Allister: I wish to place on record my reservations and concerns about the proposal, as I did at the Committee. Section 86 of the Charities Act 2008 establishes the qualifications to be a trustee; that is, to be a trustee of any charity. It is no surprise that it stipulates certain restrictions, one of which is that you cannot be convicted of a relevant criminal offence. In other words, you cannot be a convicted crook and be a trustee of a charity. That, I must say, seems to me eminently right and sensible, yet the purpose and intent of the order is to exclude from that basic qualification requirement one sector of charities, namely religious charities. The purpose of what has been said comes to this: you cannot be a convicted criminal or crook and the trustee of a charity unless it is a religious charity. That seems to me to be so incongruous as to be wrong.

What is section 86 but the qualifications of a trustee? Why should the qualifications of a trustee not be uniform across the charity sector? Why should we create a special exemption to allow someone who could not be a trustee of a children's charity or a preservation society looking after birds, or anything else, to be a trustee of a religious charity? The fact that they may be a convicted crook is pushed aside and does not matter. Is that right?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. I am interested in his view. I should at the outset declare an interest as an elder in Bessbrook Presbyterian Church. The Member will know from his experience in Church affairs that it is possible for people who previously had convictions for a variety of reasons to change their lives — particularly to have changed their lives as a result of religious conviction — and to lead then very respectable, upright and law-abiding lives. The Member seems to be precluding those people from serving; from being forgiven, if you like, having served their sentence from the state. He is not prepared to see them forgiven by the Church.

Mr Allister: The Member makes an understandable point, and I recognise entirely the capacity through the grace of God for people to change, but section 76 takes account of that. In setting out the qualifications, it does not apply to spent convictions. Therefore, if a conviction is spent by virtue of the passage of time, it does not prohibit that person from being a trustee of any charity. The aspect that the Member raises, I think, is adequately covered by the protection in section 76 against a spent conviction being a barrier to being a trustee.

The real point that was brought to us by the Churches, and, clearly, they were somewhat misinformed, because they approached the Committee on the basis that that meant that the Assembly Commission, in consequence, could remove trustees. It does not, because the single section in the Charities Act 2008 that allows the Charity Commission to remove trustees already does not apply to Churches. Section 34 has been disapplied, so it is not a case of the Churches saying that it is an unconscionable interference with the running of the Churches because it allows the Charity Commission to remove trustees. It does not. That power does not exist. All that section 86 says is, "Here are the qualifications of a trustee", but it does not give the Charity Commission the right to remove any trustee of any religious order. That still lies with the Churches. All that it does is say, "Here is the public expectation for any charity that wishes to be a charity and that wishes, in consequence, to avail itself of the taxation benefits of being a charity and to draw down the public money that comes with that. For any charity that wants to be in that position, here is the standard expectation of the qualifications of your trustees. It is up to you, as the religious charity, to appoint your trustees, but to appoint them as any other organisation would against the qualifications that are in section 86".

It therefore seems to me —

Mr Douglas: I thank the Member for giving way. I am not quite sure where the Member is going with this. First, is he saying that there is a risk that those convicted crooks could end up in one of those charities? Secondly, I am sure that he loves the apostle Paul, as I do, who was the chief of all crooks and sinners. Does he fear a risk to those charities? I remind him that I mentioned earlier that the Committee has been told that Scotland has had no problems whatsoever.

Mr Allister: I suppose that I am dealing with the principle of what is right and what is wrong. It just seems to me incongruous and wrong that you can have an unspent criminal conviction on financial matters and be a trustee of a religious charity yet cannot be a trustee of a charity that looks after animals, birds or something else if you have such a conviction. That seems to me inexplicable. Therefore, I do not understand the exercise of the Church bodies to think that, by simply making them subject to the same generalised qualifications for the appointment of trustees as everyone else, the state is in some way interfering in their affairs.

Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way?

Mr Allister: In a moment.

It is no more interfering in their affairs than saying, "Here is the procedure by which you apply to be a charity. You have to fill in this form and that form and make this declaration and that declaration".

That is the state saying what you must do. Here is the state saying, "And this is the state's expectation of the qualifications of a trustee". I do not see what is wrong with the state saying that.

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for giving way. I declare an interest as a ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. Can the Member perhaps clarify a number of points for me? First, is he saying that the Church should appoint people to positions — the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, for example — not on the basis of what scripture merits but on the basis of what the state says their qualifications should be? Secondly, if he is saying that this is an issue of right or wrong, does he believe that the Churches were wrong to ask for the exemption?

Mr Allister: I think that the Churches were misinformed about what they thought they needed to ask for. It is clear from their submission that they thought that the consequence of this was that the Assembly Commission could remove trustees. They were obviously misinformed about that because, as section 34 does not apply, the Assembly Commission cannot remove trustees. That was a false fear. It is simply a matter of whoever is setting up a charity and seeking to avail themselves of the advantages of it — there are financial advantages to being a charity — accepting the law of the land, whether it is about the forms you have to fill in or the qualifications of a trustee. That is not too much to ask.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Allister: Yes.

Mr Dickson: The Member says that it is not too much to ask, but when we questioned the clerk to the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church, he indicated that all Presbyterian ministers, male and female, are elders and are therefore subject to the legislation. That is a key and important point, and that is the issue where we effectively see Church and state coming together. Any male or female who wishes to become a member of the Presbyterian Church ministry does so through qualification and through their conviction to serve the Church. If that person happens, for example, to have been bankrupt or struck off as a company director in a previous business life, that in itself would disallow them from being a minister in the Church because a minister in the Church is an elder and an elder is a trustee and, in those circumstances, they would not be fit for office. There is the line between the influence of state over Church, and that is the nub of the issue that the Churches have come up against. It is important for the Assembly to make that distinction.

Mr Speaker: Could I make a point, Mr Allister? On a number of occasions — possibly five or six — you have said "Assembly Commission" when, I suspect, you intended to say "Charity Commission". It would be helpful, for the benefit of Hansard, if you could correct that.

Mr Allister: Yes, the Assembly Commission is on my mind for other reasons, I suspect. I would not wish to associate the Charity Commission with any misdeeds whatever. I readily correct each and every reference. If I inadvertently said "Assembly Commission", I of course intended to say "Charity Commission".

I understand the point that Mr Dickson is making, but, in the real world, the person who is going forward to be a Presbyterian Church minister is unlikely to have an unspent criminal conviction. Therefore, it is a bit of a straw man. Equally, in the case of someone being made bankrupt, bankruptcies can be discharged and there are facilities and arrangements for that. There are straw men being set up in the debate. The issue is the one that I sought to crystallise: is it right or wrong that the qualifications of a trustee should be the same across the board and that you should not enter an arena that says that the only charity that you can be a trustee of if you are a convict is a religious charity. I just find that impossible to get my head around.

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. It is an interesting discussion, and I want to try to allay some of the Member's fears. The one thing, I think, I will agree with him on is that there are few crooks as despicable as religious crooks. I have not met that many, but anyway. My experience — I am not sure whether this is his and other Members' experience — is that the appointment of trustees and senior appointments in particular Churches owes more to a life of service and dedication and a proven track record of honesty and integrity. I am not saying that charities of the state have any lesser standards, but I think Churches carry standards and generally support only nominees whom they are confident of and who will not turn out to be or to have been religious crooks.

Mr Allister: I do not disagree. I am not for one moment attacking the integrity of religious charities; I simply make the point that they should be subject to the same general law requirement as everyone else. I am not saying that, because someone was once convicted of something inappropriate, they are for ever barred from a useful life as a trustee. Section 86 does not say that because it applies only to unspent convictions.

The Church has nothing to fear from the application of section 86. What is it that it fears? I am sure it is not for the appointing of people of that ilk. I think it was a misinformed objection believing that the Charity Commission could remove their trustees, when it cannot. The essence of applying section 86 to everyone will create no bogeymen and no fear, I would have thought, for any religious charity. That is my point of view.

Lord Morrow: The debate has taken a turn that I did not imagine it would. I should say that it was remiss of me not to declare an interest at the outset, in that I am an office bearer in a Church. I want to put that on the record.

I listened carefully to all that was said, most of it in support of what we are trying to do and of what the order is trying to achieve. Mr Douglas, a colleague of mine sitting behind me, stole the words out of my mouth, because, when Mr Allister was speaking, I automatically thought of the Apostle Paul. If we were to adopt the line that Mr Allister is asking us to, I am not sure whether the Apostle Paul would qualify.

Mr Kennedy raised the point first because he referred to those who maybe one day had crook status and then transferred to the saint status. Maybe as a Minister I should not say this, but I will say it anyway: I believe that that can happen. I know where it has happened not only in biblical times — we do not have to go even there — but in all our towns, where those who lived a life in one direction have, because of a transformation or a Damascus road experience, as some call it, changed and are fit people, in my opinion, not because of any good in them but in the work of grace in their heart.

Having said that, let me say this: the order is not opening the door or gate for every crook to come in, take over and be accepted. All the Churches I am aware of support what is being done. I believe that the state should not interfere in the running of a Church.

I believe that with all of my heart, and I believe it for very good reasons. Have we got it so wrong that, in the case of someone who has a conviction, in particular for a financial matter, some Church would feel that that person is an ideal person to be a member of its governing body, whether that is the eldership of the Church, the committee of the Church or whatever role it might be? I do not think that Churches act that irresponsibly. I do not honestly believe that they do, but I think that the point that is trying to be made is that those who have an unspent crime and have not done the time cannot be included in this.

There is a regulation in Scotland similar to this order, and there has been no report of any issue that has arisen because of it. I think that that is worth taking cognisance of. I think that it is important that we say that the order extends the easements that are appropriate due to the unique structures in some faith-based organisations and is in line with similar easements for such organisations in Scotland. Furthermore, due to the structures and internal hierarchy in all of the major Churches, their trustees also have a pastoral role, and automatic disqualification would not allow them to fulfil that role. I think that it is important that that is put on the record, and I think that it is important that it should be said here today in relation to this order that we are attempting to take through. Furthermore, I believe that the order is a natural extension of the easements already provided for in the 2008 Act. It is a proportionate approach to regulation, with the safeguard of ultimate sanction by the Charity Commission, thereby presenting little risk to government or public confidence in the charitable sector.

I could go on and repeat what others have said, but I think that I am right in my assessment that, generally, there is support around the House today for what the order will do. I commend it to the House.

Mr Speaker: I call on the Minister of Education, Mr John O'Dowd, to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Shared Education 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, amendment Nos 1 to 14, dealing with the definition of shared education, the purposes of the Act, reporting and integrated education. Once the debate on the group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Mr Speaker: We now come to the amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 14. Members should note that, if amendment No 1 is not made, amendment No 4 will not be called and that amendment Nos 10 and 11 are mutually exclusive.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Education): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr O'Dowd: I am pleased that this Bill, which will help to shape the future of education here, has now reached Further Consideration Stage. I have tabled a number of minor and technical amendments which are necessary following Consideration Stage. These are to ensure consistency and provide clarity in the Bill. Before dealing with these, however, I will pick up on one amendment that was tabled at Consideration Stage but not moved with a view to re-tabling at today’s stage.

Three mutually exclusive amendments had been tabled at Consideration Stage, all seeking to provide clarity that references to "religious belief" included those with no religious belief. I had agreed to seek a resolution and bring forward an amendment that would be acceptable to everyone. Amendment No 14 is designed to do exactly that. As promised at Consideration Stage, my amendment references the Fair Employment and Treatment Order 1998 definition of religious belief. That will ensure that the Bill is consistent with the approach taken in other legislation and is legally defensible. As a result, I am pleased to note that the Committee has decided not to re-table its proposed amendment. Mr Lunn has tabled amendment Nos 2 and 3, with a slight variation in wording from that which was previously tabled.

As previously outlined, amendment No 3 which seeks to add "other" to the qualifying statement regarding reasonable numbers of Protestant and Roman Catholic children. The definition would be satisfied where a group comprised only Protestant and other religions or Roman Catholic and other religions. Critically, it leaves out the requirement for reasonable numbers of both Protestant and Catholic children and young people to be involved in a group. That would alter the definition of shared education and run contrary to the policy intent. I urge the House to support amendment No 14, which I believe offers the best and most robust solution.

I will now turn to my other technical amendments before addressing the amendments tabled by other Members. I have tabled two amendments to reposition wording on the purpose of shared education that was introduced at Consideration Stage. These remove the purpose from its current position in clause 1 to create a new stand-alone clause at the start of the Bill. That will ensure that the purpose applies to the whole Bill and not just the definition, where it is currently placed. I believe that that was the intent of the House.

To ensure clarity and consistency in the Bill, I have additionally proposed replacing "participants" with "children and young persons", as used elsewhere in the Bill. Importantly, "children and young persons" are already defined in legislation, whereas "participants" is not. Amendment Nos 1 and 4 will address those points, and I urge members to support these amendments.

Amendment No 5 removes the term "ancillary to education" from the definition of "relevant provider" following further legal advice. The expression "ancillary to education" has been used in the Education Orders since 1986 to cover education provision in its widest sense. The change from a "power" on my Department to a "duty" to encourage, facilitate and promote shared education necessitates a more focused approach. The amendment will ensure that all mainstream providers of education within the scope of the policy intent are covered. That will reduce the potential for legal challenge that a "duty" would allow to a wider range of providers. I, therefore, seek the support of the House in agreeing amendment No 5.

Amendment No 7 provides for the addition of the words:

to clause 2, which was considered at Consideration Stage. That will ensure full alignment with the duty on the Education Authority, as set out in the Education Act 2014, and, importantly, underlines that the duty does not confer additional powers. I encourage Members to support amendment No 7.

Clause 3 places a power on the named bodies, including sectoral bodies, to encourage and facilitate shared education. Wording introduced at Consideration Stage to define a sectoral body is not sufficiently robust. The proposed definition was taken from the draft Education and Skills Authority Bill but without the underpinning wider RPA proposals. As drafted, it would apply a power to encourage and facilitate shared education to organisations that are not commonly viewed as sectoral bodies. In contrast, provision was made in the Education Act 2014 for grant payment to any body that is recognised as representing the interests of schools of all descriptions. I understand that that was the intent. I therefore urge Members to support amendment No 9.

In its current draft, the Bill contains a number of discrepancies in terminology, in particular, between the wording of the purpose and that used in clause 6, which deals with review and reporting. For example, the purpose is the delivery of "educational benefits" but what is reviewed is "educational attainment". Similar discrepancies exist regarding the terminology for the use of resources and good relations. The substance of clause 6 is covered in almost identical language in the wording of the purpose. Amendment No 12 will ensure that the requirement as set out in clause 6 is consistent with the wording as set out under the purpose. The amendment does not alter the information that my Department is required to report on but will ensure consistency in the Bill.

I now turn to amendment No 13, which also relates to clause 6. Amendment No 13 will address a discrepancy that, as currently drafted, means that there is no requirement for the Department to report on its own actions. Clause 6 currently applies only to education bodies specified in clause 3, whereas the Department is referenced in clause 2. Hence, amendment No 13 will correct what appears to be an omission rather than the intention of the Assembly.

I would, again, recommend that the House support amendment Nos 12 and 13.

The last of my amendments — amendment Nos 6 and 14 — are designed to ensure the correct interpretation of words and expressions used in the Bill. Amendment No 6 repositions existing wording on interpretation from clause 1. That is necessary to accommodate other amendments. Amendment No 14 provides the clarification that "religious belief" includes those with no religious belief, as I outlined earlier. I encourage Members to support amendment No 14 in preference to amendment Nos 2 and 3.

I now turn to amendments tabled by other Members. I oppose amendment No 8, which would add integrated education to the duty on my Department to encourage, facilitate and promote shared education. Provision is already made in the 1989 Education Reform Order for my Department to encourage and facilitate integrated education. If the intention is to include "promote" in the existing provision, duplicating an existing provision is not the way to achieve that aim.

Amendment Nos 10 and 11, which are mutually exclusive, again seek to include integrated education in the duty to consider shared education. Integrated education and shared education are different. The former relates to the education together of Protestant and Catholic pupils and, as clarified by Judge Treacy, plainly envisages education together at the same school. By contrast, shared education is the education together of pupils involving two or more schools or other education providers. To reference integrated education in a Bill concerned with shared education would only serve to cause confusion between what are different but complementary means of education. Work is ongoing on a review of integrated education that I commissioned. The review is the appropriate mechanism to address what, I believe, Members seek to achieve. I therefore urge Members to allow the review to do what it was established for and to oppose amendment Nos 10 and 11.

In conclusion, I commend my amendments to the House and look forward to the debate.

Mr Weir (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): At Further Consideration Stage, we are in a situation in which the amendments have been somewhat narrowed, so I will keep my remarks relatively brief. I will speak initially on behalf of the Committee and then as a member of the DUP.

Since Consideration Stage, the Committee has received an update from the Department on the contentious amendments. There were a couple of areas where clearly there was no resolution at Consideration Stage. I think that members were generally happy with the Department’s assurances in respect of the participation amendment that was previously proposed by Mr Lunn. That amendment has not been tabled, and there are other ways of dealing with that.

The Department kindly provided an explanation for its revised "no religious belief" amendment and on the other somewhat more technical amendments that apply to the new purposes clause, the review of shared education and the powers of sectoral bodies. The Committee did not agree a formal position on those amendments. That said, no formal objections were set out by the Committee in that regard either. I note that, in respect of the "no religious belief" amendment, we again have a number of choices. Mr Lunn proposes amendment Nos 2 and 3, and the Minister proposes amendment No 14. I am sure that, across the Chamber, Members will listen carefully to the debate and decide accordingly.

Other amendments that have been tabled by Mr Lunn and Mr Agnew relate to integrated education. The Committee has not taken a formal position on those amendments. However, it would be fair to point out that somewhat similar suggestions were made during the Committee Stage and that the majority of Committee members agreed at that time that, rather than further legislative change in respect of integrated education, a strategic review was required. I am pleased to note that the Minister has recently commissioned such a review. I anticipate that the majority of Committee members may not, therefore, choose to support the related amendments, but time will tell.

As I said at Consideration Stage, the majority of members feel that it is a good Bill. Members generally welcome the policy in respect of shared education and, thanks to the amendments previously agreed, the roles and duties of the Department and the arm's-length bodies. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the Minister and his officials for providing clarity to members on the amendments before us.

I turn to the amendments as a DUP MLA. As indicated by the Minister, the amendments fit largely into two categories: a range of ministerial amendments and private Members' amendments that have been tabled by either Mr Lunn or Mr Agnew. Turning, first, to the ministerial amendments, I think that a number of them, as indicated, are relatively technical in nature and are, largely, tidying-up amendments, either through some tweaking needed in the Bill or as a response to some of the amendments that went through at Consideration Stage. Again, as a DUP Member, I have no problem with them.

Two amendments from the Minister are slightly more substantive in nature. First, amendment No 1 creates a new clause, "Purpose of this Act". This is somewhere between substantive and technical. It reflects what was put through the House at Consideration Stage There was a clear determination by the Committee, which felt that it was important to spell out the purpose of shared education on the face of the Bill. This, effectively, shifts it into a separate clause and is probably a neater way of doing it. I have no problem whatever with that.

Then, we get into an overlap between the Minister's amendments and, in particular, those of Mr Lunn. The Minister's amendment No 14 and Mr Lunn's amendment No 2 cover the same issue, more or less, in trying to encapsulate those who are registered as having no religious belief. From a technical point of view, the Minister's amendment is the better of the two. We had a sort of benign Mexican stand-off at Consideration Stage, where Mr Lunn, the Committee and the Minister all agreed to withdraw their amendments for further consideration. We have had the opportunity, as a Committee, to discuss amendment No 14 and have it explained to us. On that basis, I think that, because it is rooted in the 1998 Order, it is probably better from a technical point of view. I would certainly be inclined to go with amendment No 14 rather than amendment No 2.

Turning to the other four amendments — three from Mr Lunn and one from Mr Agnew — I will talk about amendment No 3 first. To be fair, there has been an attempt to pursue the issue of Protestant, Roman Catholic "and other" originally and now "or other". While, in one sense, this is a slight improvement on what was there before, shared education should have a strong cross-community element to it and, when one makes it a gamut of choices between all of those, that does not guarantee a cross-community element. It could involve Protestants and others, Roman Catholics and others or Protestants and Roman Catholics, and I think it muddies the waters and dilutes the Bill's intention as regards shared education. From that point of view, I am not sure that amendment No 3 is in any way an improvement on what is already in the Bill.

Mr Lunn: I thank the Member for giving way. I am curious to know what he thinks the status of "others" is in our society. This society is not entirely composed of Protestants and Catholics, far from it. I do not need to quote the figures as we all know them. Do "others" have no place or say in the question of shared education?

Mr Weir: It is not a question of that. Again, this is missing the point. Without going into the broad thrust of the Bill, there are a number of drivers to shared education. One of the key elements is the strong cross-community element along what might be described as the main Protestant-Roman Catholic fracture line in our society. There is certainly a strong place for people who find themselves outside that definition. However, if we simply ignore it and allow the box of shared education to be ticked by almost any combination that can be provided, we go against the spirit of what is intended by shared education. If there is to be a reconciliation between the two largest communities in Northern Ireland and therefore a community benefit as a by-product of shared education — something that has been recognised in a number of places in the Bill — we will dilute that. I have to say that I do not support the amendment that is being put forward on that front.

Amendment Nos 8, 10, and 11 are similar in many ways. I have two problems with this. First, it is a question of whether this is the right place in which to place integrated education. The Minister has already alluded to the fact that there is direct legislative provision for integrated education. Shared education is not the same as integrated education.

It may, in certain circumstances, lead to integrated education, but it can also be within and between sectors. From the Committee's point of view, and certainly on the DUP's behalf, we sought in the Bill to try not to make judgement calls between different sectors. We tried as much as possible, through the amendments that the Committee tabled at Consideration Stage, to say that there should be more of a level playing field between all the sectors. That is why we tried to include the various governing bodies of the different sectors. Therefore, to shoehorn one sector in at the last minute to put it on a different plane from the others is the wrong way of doing it.

Perhaps more importantly, when the Committee, prior to my time, brought forward a report on shared and integrated education, one of the key recommendations was that there needed to be a strategic review of integrated education. It may well be that whenever that review is completed, one of the proposed changes will be something similar to the amendments that have been put forward, but I cannot prejudge that. It seems to me to be a slightly ridiculous position that we have the very welcome action that has been taken by the Department and the Minister to create that detailed focus, reassessment and study of integrated education, but then to start that process and immediately change the legislation around it. That, to my mind, seems to be putting the cart before the horse in relation to that. If there are to be legislative changes in integrated education, they should be on the back of whatever outcome emerges from that. That is the proper way of doing things.

To that extent, I believe that amendment Nos 8, 10 and 11 may be the inappropriate legislation for this, and it is also an inappropriate time. From that point of view, therefore, I do not find favour with amendment Nos 8, 10 and 11. It might be something that we could come back to at a later stage when there is a detailed report, but it is, at most, premature on that basis. I suppose, in summary, therefore, that my party will support the ministerial amendments, but I do not find favour with the other amendments that have been brought forward today.

Mr Hazzard: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill at Further Consideration Stage. I find myself in the peculiar situation in which I almost want to agree entirely with the Committee Chair. I will keep my comments brief, nevertheless. As the Chair has just outlined, although in his position as DUP spokesperson for education, we too, on this side of the House, will support the Minister's amendments while opposing those of the other Members, for more or less the exact reasons that have been outlined.

There was a lot of tic-tacking on the issue of religious belief. Amendment No 14 is in accordance with best practice in legislation and is in keeping with the purpose of the Bill. The Minister and the Member both previously outlined that the inclusion of the word "other" removes the provision that shared education is more than just simply about Catholics and Protestant than might have been the intention. Therefore, it dilutes the policy intent of the Bill to the extent that it is sloppy legislation, and we should stay away from it.

As was outlined beforehand, I do not think that the Bill is the place for amendment Nos 8, 10 and 11. If, as Mr Weir said, the review makes recommendations around those issues, that is when we should look at it again. The 1989 Order is clear; this provision is already provided for, so I do not think that this is the place to do it. I am happy to leave it there, a Cheann Comhairle. We will support the Minister's amendments and oppose those in the names of the two other Members.

Mrs D Kelly: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill's Further Consideration Stage. I have listened with interest to some of the debate on Protestant, Roman Catholic and "other", and I would be interested to hear from the Minister, if possible, what difference it would make to the legislation or, more particularly, to the resources available to such schools that have a higher proportion of "other" pupils as opposed to Catholic and Protestant pupils.

I think that we are living in a more diverse society, and that is something that I very much welcome. It is something that we all need to recognise and embrace. I understand the principles behind shared education. I know that the Assembly, 18 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, has neglected the integrated sector somewhat. Some such remarks were contained in Mr Justice Treacy's judgement last year, but I also recognise the realities of the society that we live in.

Some talk about people being on a journey. We all know that wanting the best educational outcome for our children is at the heart of parental choice. Shared education opportunities assist some people on that journey, but they also reflect the challenging financial environment that education and all other public sectors have to work in. The definition of "shared education" and the proposed new clause — amendment No 1 — setting out the purpose of shared education are things that I welcome and support.

I want to hear more from Mr Lunn about amendment No 2 in order to distil the argument around how he and his party view that change. I also want to listen to what the Minister has to say in his summing-up. Our party is broadly supportive of shared education. We recognise that we could not remain in a situation in which nothing was being done, either financially or for the good of society by promoting a shared future, and, indeed, reconciliation. However, I do not think that there should be just the gloss of shared education. The old exchanges between Catholic and Protestant schools were more about running after the funding than they were about any sort of cultural or societal change to wanting to be educated together.

Mr Weir: Will the Member give way?

Mrs D Kelly: Yes.

Mr Weir: I agree with the Member very much that we have to ensure that what is there is not tokenistic in nature. That is something that was discussed at Consideration Stage and that the Committee looked at in depth.

The old stereotypes where you go to sports days twice a year or where on one Wednesday you play rugby and on the next you play one of the Gaelic sports — those sorts of things — are not what it must be. It has to be whole curriculum-based. The important thing to say is that assurances were given — I look forward to the Minister confirming this — that guidance will partly be the best way in which to deal with this, rather than to straitjacket it through legislation. But I think that the point is well made that we want something that is about genuine sharing, as opposed to a few boxes being ticked to ensure that funding arrives at a range of schools.

Mrs D Kelly: I welcome the Committee Chair's intervention, and it provides some clarity. As I said in my remarks last night, I was not a member of the Committee when some of the points were being deliberated. Nonetheless, it is fair to reflect on the future of shared education. One of the principles of shared education is that there is an onus being placed on pupils to integrate, so meeting outside of school is also promoted, and that is why outside clubs and sports also have a role to play in providing an opportunity for our young people to meet.

When we look at last week's report on the continuing segregation in the housing sector, we see that it is important that we provide opportunities for young people to meet those from other community or religious backgrounds, in order to promote a better society, in which people have better understanding and tolerance of each other. Some of the principles of shared education go some way to addressing that, but I recognise that it is a long process, and there is not going to be a transformation overnight.

Mrs Overend: The Shared Education Bill has evolved from being an A4 piece of paper with four short clauses into an eight-clause Bill after being amended at Consideration Stage.

The Ulster Unionist Party wants Northern Ireland to be set on a course to create a single state education system. That is in line with the vision of the first and last Ulster Unionist Education Ministers, Lord Londonderry in 1921 and Basil McIvor in 1974. If shared education is a vehicle to create that single system, we will support it. I am very concerned, however, from last night's debate and this morning's vote on our amendments to the Employment Bill, that many in the House do not share that vision and want to retain barriers between sectors. Despite the rhetoric, there is still no real consensus on what shared education is about and where it should lead. That is the context of the Bill before us.

I turn to the amendments proposed at Further Consideration Stage. It seems to us that the ministerial amendments, namely amendment Nos 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13 and 14, are essentially tidying-up amendments framed by legislative draftspersons. We find nothing particularly objectionable in them. I believe that amendment Nos 1 and 4 are connected. I seek some clarification as to who or what might be excluded by amendment No 5; maybe the Minister could provide some examples. I listened acutely to the Minister, but maybe he could clarify amendment No 6 again and just go over the detail of the reason for leaving out clause 1(5). I am content with the other amendments tabled by the Minister.

Looking at amendment No 2 compared with the ministerial amendment No 14 — sorry, it was amendment No 3; that is right. I want to refer to amendment No 3. Clause 1 includes the words:

We are content with the wording of the clause as it sits and we do not feel that further amendment is necessary. The sharing will include those of different religious beliefs; not only Protestants and Roman Catholics but all religions, and I am content with it as it is.

I turn to amendment Nos 8, 10 and 11. Amendment No 10 is in Mr Lunn's name and amendment No 11 is in Mr Agnew's. They are different versions of the same thing and they add the word "integrated" to the duties of the Department to encourage and facilitate and — in Mr Lunn's amendment No 8 — the duty of education bodies to consider in devising and delivering policies. The Ulster Unionist Party supported shared education in the context of a long-term integrated future and we support "integrated" education in its widest sense, as a movement rather than a particular sector or type of school. The problem is that, although these amendments refer to integrated with a small "i", our understanding, certainly in the wake of the Drumragh ruling, is that, legislatively, when we talk about integrated education, we are actually talking about integrated with a large "I"; in other words, the specific sector. The integrated sector already has protection in statute in Northern Ireland in section 64 of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which imposes a statutory duty on the Department of Education in Northern Ireland:

That was reaffirmed in the Belfast Agreement. While we support shared education in the context of integrating education, the integrated sector already has legislative support for its promotion. We support those existing regulations but we are unconvinced that the amendments tabled here are necessary and in the right place in the Bill.

I conclude by reiterating my support for the ministerial amendments but not for those of the other Members, well intentioned as they may be.

Mr Lunn: I could say, first of all, that it is good to see that we have managed to achieve a level of consensus between Mr Hazzard and Mr Weir. When Mr Hazzard says that he agrees with almost every word that Mr Weir says, I think Mr Weir should watch how he is going. I do not particularly disagree about the ministerial amendments. The main difference between those two and me is that I happen to support my own amendment as well.

I welcome this stage of the Bill. It is not a secret that the Alliance Party has had some reservations about the direction of travel in all this, and the emphasis that this place has on shared education, possibly at the expense of forcing people to take their eye off the ball in terms of what I consider to be the purest form of sharing, which is the integrated movement. It has been said many times in the House, even at the last stage, that some people who might not feel as strongly as I do still see integrated education as the end of a continuum that starts with shared education. I continue to hope that that is the case and that this legislation and movement will lead people to realise that, frankly, if you can share, you can integrate eventually. That is my hope for it.

That is the reason for our amendment Nos 8 and 11. There is a perception that integrated education is being put on the back-burner and sidelined by all this — by the weight of political pressure and of finance, which is being directed towards the movement. That may be at the expense of integrated education. The duty on the Department to "encourage, facilitate and promote" shared education has, as I have often said here, gone beyond the use of the word "promote". The same Department has a duty for integrated education. We have reservations about that.

Where amendment Nos 8 and 11 are concerned, the absence of the word "promote" in the Department's duty can be remedied quite easily by placing it on the record in the Bill. It would be an acknowledgement. I hear people say that the Bill is the wrong place, but, frankly, the Assembly has recently had a proud record of trying to tack things on to Bills in the wrong place. Sometimes they pass, and sometimes they do not. It is not without precedent; it does happen. This may be the wrong place technically, in some people's terms, but it is a suitable place. What harm would it do to use the word "integrated" in the clauses I highlighted? It would certainly not harm the shared education movement, but it might give some reassurance to the thousands of good people who have spent the last 40 years trying to bring children together in education and who feel a bit threatened and feel that there is a lack of equity and equality across these two — I cannot call them sectors — movements. Even at this stage, I urge the House to accept amendment Nos 8 and 11. I am not receiving much body language feedback that says that will happen, but I will continue to ask because I think it is the right thing to do.

Turning to the other amendments, amendment No 1 proposes a purpose clause. We have no problem whatsoever with this amendment, but I will happily make the point that, if you were to take out the word "shared" and put in "integrated" in that purpose clause, you would find that it would fit perfectly well. The clause would say:

That is what the integrated sector has been trying to do for the last 40 years. We will accept amendment No 1.

Amendment No 2 ties in with ministerial amendment No 14. I am slightly amused by this. At the last stage, Mr Weir, the Minister and I agreed that we would withdraw amendments so that we could have another look at this. What I have done is move towards the Minister's point of view, because that is what he wanted the last time. I find it slightly odd — I continue to find it off the wall, frankly — to have to say that religious belief includes an absence of religious belief. The Minister has come up with amendment No 14, which relates to previous tried and tested legislation. I think the definition in the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 is pretty reasonable for what we are trying to achieve. We will not pursue amendment No 2.

I will move on to amendment No 3. At the last stage, we suggested "Protestant, Roman Catholic and other". The other parties did not feel able to accept that because it appeared to indicate that you need representation from all three groups, which is not our intention.

What we would like to do is to recognise, as I said to Mr Weir in an intervention, that the number of others in this country now is significant. I cannot put a figure on it, but, if you take out the Protestants and Roman Catholics — sorry, Kieran, Catholics — there are an awful lot of people who do not qualify under either description, and they deserve to be taken into account.

For the life of me, I cannot understand the objection. Some people are reading it as meaning that you could satisfy the requirements of the Bill by having a reasonable number of Protestants and others, or Roman Catholics — Catholics — and others. That is not how I read it. I remember the Minister indicating that this could be left reasonably loose. It was, I think, in a letter to me that he indicated that we did not need to be too prescriptive and that the regulations that followed would deal with the situation. It is my amendment, and I find no fault with it, but I wish that others would see it the same way as I do.

Amendment No 4 is OK. I think that others have queried amendment No 5, which takes out the word "ancillary". The Minister may be able to expand on that. I see no particular difficulty with it. Amendment No 6 simply leaves out a subsection.

Amendment No 7 inserts:

That seems like a warning to the Department not to extend the powers that it has. I wonder whether it is necessary. I also wonder what harm it could do. I do not expect the Department to try to exceed its powers. We will not die in a ditch over it.

I have already talked about amendment No 8. Amendment No 9 appears to take out three or four provisions and replace them with perfectly sensible provisions from the 2014 Act. That is fine; it is a good "tidy up", you could say.

Amendment No 10 is from Mr Agnew — oh, he is here now; that is good — and is identical to our amendment No 11, with the same words in a different order. Maybe he will make more progress with amendment No 10 than I will with amendment No 11. I will certainly support his amendment, and I congratulate him for showing support for fairness, equality and the principle of educating children together as a key to the shared future that we all nominally aspire to.

I have no problem with amendment No 12. Amendment No 13 relates to the purposes clause and appears to be a lot simpler than what it replaces, so we will not argue about that. I have already touched on amendment No 14. I wonder how we did not realise before this stage that such wording existed, given that it looks pretty satisfactory. For that reason, as I said, we will not move amendment No 2.

In conclusion, I again make an appeal to the House. We do not have to constantly take the same attitude to these things; we could be a bit more flexible and perhaps provide some reassurance to people out there who see things differently, particularly the equality between the shared and integrated movements. I know that there is to be a strategic review of integrated education and I was very pleased when the Minister announced that some time ago — before Christmas, I think. That is good, but I do not see why that should put a stop to anything to do with integrated education, particularly a fairly simply amendment like this, which would not harm anybody or damage the Bill. I will leave it there.

Mr McCausland: In supporting the Bill, I will refer particularly to some of the elements in amendment No 1, which would insert a new clause on the purpose of the Act. The other amendments have already been covered by my colleague, the Chair of the Committee, Mr Peter Weir.

I welcome the proposed clause on the purpose of the Act. It brings out some key points. It is clear that there should be educational benefits for the children and that shared education should promote:

Then, when you come to the issue of sharing and what that means, the proposed clause refers clearly to the key elements of "equality", "good relations" and:

Those are what, for many years, the Community Relations Council called for when it talked about equity, diversity and interdependence and also the need for community cohesion. If we are to build a better future in Northern Ireland, it should be a shared future, and that is stated very clearly through identity, diversity, interdependence and community cohesion.

I find it interesting that the purpose is:

Identity is multifaceted and multilayered. For some people, there will be particular focus on a religious identity; for others, on a political or cultural identity. We all have so many identities, and that is the point that I am making when I speak about identity being multifaceted or multilayered. Therefore, the wording is such that it encapsulates and accommodates the fact that we are unique and have our own combination of identities that make up our individual identity.

Education and schools have a particular role to play in that. Think about the principal sectors — the controlled sector, the maintained sector and, then, the integrated and Irish-medium sectors. In some of those sectors there is a particular focus on a cultural tradition. There is a cultural aspect to the education of the children. For example, Irish-medium education is very clearly focused on, embedded in and based on Gaelic, Irish-language culture.

I was thinking also of the maintained sector. I came across again a little quote from some years ago. It comes from an article by Jude Collins, who was at that time a lecturer in education at the University of Ulster as well as a columnist in the now defunct 'Daily Ireland'. I think that it belonged to someone who is now a Member — Mr Ó Muilleoir. At least he was a major shareholder. To go back to what Jude Collins said at that time about the maintained sector. He said that it was particularly important that CCMS be protected because that sector:

He was, therefore, supporting the best outcome — the best support — for the maintained sector.

When we speak about promoting equality of opportunity, it is important that, as schools from different sectors come together through shared education, the children bring with them equality in their understanding of, appreciation of and education about the cultural tradition, the community and the home from which they come. That, of course, is set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. One might also think of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the importance therein of children not being assimilated into a cultural tradition other than the one to which they are naturally affiliated.

In winding up, I will simply make the point that, as we progress with shared education, it is particularly important — even more important than it is already — that, within all sectors, there is an equity of focus on the cultural tradition of the children and that the culture that is currently expressed clearly in Irish-medium schools and maintained schools, as Jude Collins was saying, is also to be found in controlled schools and other schools in the same way and that, for example, children in the integrated education sector, whatever their background, have equal exposure to and education about their cultural tradition. Some interesting issues are raised by the focus on equality of opportunity, because alongside equality is the human rights issue and the rights of the child, as embedded in the UN convention and in other documents such as the framework convention. I hope that those things will be explored as we move forward with what is a very interesting opportunity.

Mr Agnew: First, I apologise to the Members whose contributions I did not get to hear. Other business that I had overran. I like to be in from the start of debates, but, unfortunately, that was not possible today.

Amendment Nos 2 and 3 come to the issue of how we include reference to the two main denominations in Northern Ireland and include others of different faith and none. We grappled with this issue at Consideration Stage, and a number of different proposals were put forward. We have two here today. I fear that, in almost seeking to come to a consensus, we are coming out with the least best option. However, should amendment Nos 2 and 3 not be passed, what will be clear to anyone interpreting this legislation is the intent. It is important to debate language when we are producing legislation.

Mr Weir: Will the Member give way?

Mr Agnew: Absolutely.

Mr Weir: I appreciate that there is a separate argument in relation to amendment No 3. I also appreciate that the Member was not in for the earlier part of the debate. Amendment Nos 2 and 3 are not seen either as alternatives or, indeed, as in any way particularly interrelated. Amendment No 14 actually covers the point in a much more technical way than amendment No 2 does.

Mr Agnew: I thank the Member for his intervention. We had this debate at length. In settling on a final form of words, the intent will be clear. It is my understanding that, when legislation is being interpreted, the context can be looked at. Indeed, the words that we use here will be used to help interpret it. There were amendments that I preferred that were not passed at Consideration Stage. I hate this phrase, but we are where we are. We will resolve this issue today, and the Bill will be no worse for that.

On amendment Nos 8, 10, which is my own, and 11, I was told that I should be reassured and not concerned about shared education somehow being a further barrier to what I see as genuine integration. I see the opposition to these amendments as some indication that my instincts were correct. This is an agenda for shared education, not integrated. It is not a step in the direction of integrated. It is an alternative, and I see it as a further barrier to integrated.

I have said all along that the solution to our fall in classroom numbers was, in many cases, to merge schools and create a single school where children of both faiths, others and none are educated together with the same uniform, the same ethos and the same principal. The seeming intention of the House to oppose inclusion of consideration of integrated education within the contexts outlined in the Bill is regrettable and a further indication —

Mr Rogers: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree with me that St Columbanus' College, Bangor — where he, Mr Weir and I recently attended a prize-giving — is a great example of shared education but also a great example of integrated education with a small i?

Mr Agnew: I thank the Member for his intervention. Obviously, it is a school in my constituency. As he knows, I have supported their campaign for a new school building, and I have always been keen to attend the prize day. They have brought together children of both religions, other religions and no religion under one roof. That is a step in the right direction. However, Mass still takes place as part of the Assembly, so it has a way to go to be more inclusive. Whilst this is a step in the right direction for our education system, I do not see it as the end point, which may be where I differ from some in the House.

There is a question of resources. It is clear, with the shared education agenda, that resources will follow. My concern, and I raised this point, is that it was made clear with this agenda that a single shared school will not get the resources. So, in that scenario, St Columbanus' College would lose out, as would a single integrated school. We should be putting in resources where there is an opportunity to integrate two schools; instead, we are putting in resources to keep them separate. They will be sharing facilities but not experiences. That is where my concern lies.

I make a final plea to the House to include integrated education in the Bill to show that it is still part of the vision for education in Northern Ireland, that it is the way forward and that we want to live up to the obligations of the Order to encourage and facilitate integrated education. As I said, my fear is that this Bill and the shared education agenda are being driven by those who do not wish to see integration and are looking for a way to maintain segregation with a new name that sounds like "integration" but is not and potentially never will be.

Mr O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas le gach duine a chuir le díospóireacht an lae inniu. I thank all those Members who contributed to today’s debate.

It is clear that there is widespread support across the House for advancing shared education. As I have said, shared education provides the opportunity to raise educational standards. Access for learners to a wider choice of subjects and the increase in the access to specialist teaching, modern facilities and the sharing of good practice makes a compelling educational case.

The statutory curriculum provides a core enabling framework to promote shared education through the development of the young person as an individual, a contributor to society and a contributor to the economy and the environment. Shared education also encourages and facilitates a culture of mutual understanding between children and young people from different community backgrounds, as was pointed out by Mr McCausland. That is done in the context of our curriculum.

Mrs Kelly and the Chairperson said that they did not want to see shared education being simply a case of children going to one facility on separate buses and sitting on separate sides of the room. This is a meaningful approach to young people learning with each other and, equally as important, learning about each other from each other. That is the key in relation to shared education and shows the difference between programmes run in the past when children were brought to a venue on different buses, sat at different sides of the room, watched a film or programme and then disappeared from one another. That is not what shared education is about; it is not what this legislation is about, and it is not what the shared education policy is about. That will be further outlined in the guidance if the Bill passes its Final Stage.

Mrs Kelly again raised concerns about what happens if there is a broad mix of young people at a school and what happens to the others? There has been a debate about others. In the debate we had at Consideration Stage, I said that the question of how to include non-religious people had tested some of the best legal minds in this Building and beyond. That is dealt with in a number of my amendments.

It includes "other"; it includes those of no religious belief; it includes those beyond the common definition of Protestant and Catholic. However, as the Chair pointed out, the fault line in our society is between what is known as the two main communities, Protestant and Catholic, and we have to ensure that there is a greater understanding between those two sections of society. We want to encourage greater sharing between them, but it certainly does not exclude any other section of society or those who define themselves outside that.

We are writing law here; we are voting on law. Technically, under those amendments — perhaps even under Mr Lunn's amendment No 3, I think — there is a danger that you could have a scenario in which you could simply have a shared education project between groups of others. We do not want that to arise. I do not think that that is the intention of Mr Lunn; his contribution today certainly did not reflect that. We are writing law, and, for it to be defended at a later stage, it is best to have it defined properly. I believe that the amendments that I have brought forward today do that.

A number of Mr Lunn's amendments reflect one that I brought forward at Consideration Stage. Even Ministers are allowed to change their mind in this sense. Following reflections and the discussion that took place at Consideration Stage, and afterwards, I believe amendment No 14 allows a legally defensible and a policy-defensible position.

Mrs Overend asked about amendment No 5 and why we are moving it, as did one other Member. Amendment No 5 has come about as a result of the Bill changing at the last stage and placing a power on my Department. The expression "ancillary to education" has been used in the Education Order since 1986 and captures a wide range of services. We are trying to ensure that the services relate to school sharing and do not go beyond that. They must be specific to school and youth projects in shared education and be defined correctly in legislation. You also had concerns about amendment No 6. Amendment No 6 is one of those "tidying-up" exercises, as you referred to them, that were brought forward by the draftspeople, and it is just to ensure that the legislation is properly formatted, easily understood and how the amendments run etc.

Mr Lunn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: I will.

Mr Lunn: I am sorry about this, Minister, but I want to take you back to amendment No 3 before you finish. Does the Minister actually think that our amendment No 3 would in any way stifle the ability, or preclude the possibility, of Protestant and Roman Catholic children forming a sharing agreement within the regulations? To develop that, where is the harm if a group of Roman Catholic children and a group of other children from another school come together on a project for their mutual benefit? It depends on how you read it. I am sorry, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. It does not mean that you have to have something from all three. This amendment was also put together by people who have a legal brain; it is not just the Department that has the monopoly on that.

Mr O'Dowd: The Chamber is full of people with legal brains; look where that has got us. You summed it up yourself, Mr Lunn. You said:

We are formatting legislation, so we want to be assured that we are formatting legislation as definitively as possible. Legislation will always be open to interpretation; hence we have solicitors, barristers and judges to challenge all those sorts of things. When we draft legislation, it is only right and proper that we ensure that it is definitive and that it is aligned to the policy intent.

I have no difficulty with a group of Protestant children or a group of Catholic children coming together with a group of others. That is not the intent of the shared education policy, however. The shared education policy is about bringing together what is known as the two main communities and others to learn from and about each other from their different experiences. If we follow the intent of the policy, we have to ensure that the legislation follows the intent of the policy and that we move forward from that.

I do not think that the amendments that I have brought forward do harm or violence to your amendments. I think that they deliver what you want to deliver, and they certainly deliver it in a way that is defensible and definable under the law.

I want to move on to the integrated education amendments. This is not the integrated education Bill but the Shared Education Bill. Mr Agnew said during his contribution that he was right to suspect that people were driving forward the shared education agenda. Correct: hence the reason it is called the Shared Education Bill. We have a shared education policy and a Shared Education Bill. It is not the most imaginative way in which to drive forward a hidden agenda when you title the legislation with the name of the very policy that you want to drive forward. However, it is not done at the expense of the integrated sector.

I stand here confidently and say that, apart from Mr Lunn and a number of others who have a long, long history in the integrated movement and sector, no one else in the Chamber has done more for the sector than me. I have developed policy around it. I have developed and opened new schools. I have invested in new schools in the integrated sector. The mention of integrated and shared education in the Stormont House Agreement and the Fresh Start Agreement did not come about by accident. Somebody had to be sitting around the table championing their cause. I hold my hand up to that. There will be £50 million of investment in shared and integrated education.

Mr Lunn reflects the position of the integrated sector, which is that there is suspicion around the shared education policy and that it is there to undermine integrated education. I have heard all of that. In a number of weeks' time, I hope to be in a position to announce the outcome of discussions with the NIO and DFP on the moneys that were secured out of the Stormont House Agreement and the Fresh Start Agreement. That will give confidence to the integrated sector that its role in society is being copper-fastened by the investment in a building programme into the future that will establish the sector quite physically in many villages, towns and cities across the North and will show many that it is a booming sector.

The review that I have commissioned —

Mr Agnew: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: I will in a moment. The review that I have commissioned into the integrated sector should give it confidence that, 20 or more years after the first piece of legislation was brought in, it now has an ability to review its strengths and weaknesses and bring back a report to the next Administration and Department of Education to develop and strengthen the sector further.

The Shared Education Bill is not the place for references to the integrated sector or to conjoin it and shared education, no more than it is a place to reference the Irish-medium sector, the controlled sector, the maintained sector, the voluntary grammar sector or anything else. It is a stand-alone piece of legislation that promotes a policy that the vast majority of people in the House support and gives legislative authority to. The Bill is not here to undermine the integrated sector.

Mr Lunn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: Mr Agnew is looking in.

Mr Agnew: On his point about new builds, what assurance can the Minister give me that integrated schools will not be excluded from new-build programmes that are not specifically funded by Fresh Start money?

Mr O'Dowd: I was listening to your earlier contribution, Mr Agnew, and, given the tone of the debate, I asked myself, "Will I or will I not challenge him on his comments?". It has been very affable in the Chamber this evening. Members have been setting out their position on all of this, and then you come in and pontificate in the corner about how you are a champion of the integrated sector and about how everybody else in the Chamber has horns on their head and is out to get the integrated sector.

You now stand up and ask me what I am going to do about integrated sector builds outside shared education. Right? I have to bring you back to an earlier debate — I think that it was about a year ago — when you were challenging me on your allegation of my lack of support for the integrated sector. One of my colleagues brought in one of the north Down newspapers. Lo and behold, in that newspaper, was there not a statement from Mr Agnew?

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I ask the Minister to speak through the Chair.

Mr O'Dowd: In one of the north Down newspapers, there was a statement from Mr Agnew condemning the Minister for giving priority to the integrated sector in the building programme, which meant that schools that he wanted to be built in north Down were further down the list.

He decided that I was a very bad person and there was positive discrimination in favour of the integrated sector but the schools that he wanted built, he alleged, would never be built. Now, he has the audacity to come into the Chamber and challenge me, someone who helped to secure £50 million to invest in the integrated sector and the shared education sector.

I say in direct answer to his question that it is £50 million per annum over the next 10 years, which is £500 million. I am doing myself down here. By the time we spend all that on the integrated sector and the shared education sector, we will be hard pressed to find where we would need to put two bricks on top of each other and spend money from elsewhere. However, if we need to spend money from elsewhere, that will be up to future Administrations. If it is required to be spent, it should be spent.

Mr Lunn: I thank the Minister for giving way to me again. I fear that I might be setting myself up for him to have a go at me as well. The £500 million for shared and integrated education is proof of the fact that the two sectors are linked, and it is difficult to separate them from each other. There is no point in talking about the controlled sector and the maintained sector in the same breath when you have £500 million of specific investment for shared and integrated education. There is a fear at the moment that most of that will go one way and not the other.

The other thing that the Minister said was that nobody in the Chamber had done more for the integrated sector than him — well, apart from the two of us. I do not want to damn the Minister with faint praise, but I will acknowledge that he has done more than any of his predecessors for the integrated movement. He can take that as a compliment.

Mr O'Dowd: I will take that as a compliment, but Mr Lunn will see in Hansard that I pointed to him and others in the Chamber who have had a lifetime of commitment to the integrated sector and have done great things for it. I was not bringing all the praise onto myself, but I will take a compliment when one is going.

I hope to be in a position in a number of weeks to announce the first tranche of investment from the Fresh Start Agreement moneys, which will show where the investment is going. The proof will be in the pudding. You think that it is contradictory. The integrated sector and the shared education sector have common cause and purpose, as do the supporters of each sector. You can support both sectors in my opinion. It is about creating a difference and a change in our society and creating mutual understanding so that we can move even further than some are comfortable with, but I do not think that you have to do that in legislation. There is already legislative protection for the integrated sector. It is enshrined in law, and I have used it on several occasions to bring forward and support proposals that might otherwise have failed if that enshrinement in law had not been in place. They are protected, and they have legislative cover.

Mr Lunn: Will the Member give way again?

Mr O'Dowd: I will for the last time, but I want to wind up my speech.

Mr Lunn: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. The enshrinement in law for the integrated sector falls short of what is enshrined for the shared education model: that is the difference. The word "promote" is not there. The amendment that we propose today would effectively have included an obligation on the Department to include the word "promote". The Minister and others have said that this is not the right place to do this, but, frankly, I would like to know where the right place is. It fits with this Bill, even though some people say that it does not. Where would we do it otherwise?

Mr O'Dowd: The right place to do it is a matter for discussion on another day. This shared education legislation has come about following a ministerial advisory group report, several significant debates in the Chamber and, indeed, among the general public and a policy development and consultation and all that goes with that. The Bill itself came about following the shared education and integrated education report accepted from the Committee, and it has come through the legislative process. The legislation that is before us today, in my opinion, is sound. If the Member is arguing that we need to include "promote" in relation to integrated education, that is a debate for another day, and it is for others to decide if that definition is necessary in legislation.

I wish to bring my comments to a close. It has been a good debate, and the work of the Education Committee on the Bill has made for more robust legislation. Mrs Overend loves to say that it is an A4 piece of paper with four clauses: sometimes small is beautiful — and that is coming from somebody who is 6 feet 6 inches. The quantity of clauses in the Bill — hopefully, it will become an Act — does not have any relation to the quality of the legislation. We are taking the right steps in the right direction through the legislation. I believe that the Committee Stage, the debates in the Assembly and the amendments that have passed and those that hopefully will pass today have made for better legislation. I commend my amendments to the House, and I have put on record my comments about other amendments before us today.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Amendment No 10 is mutually exclusive with amendment No 11.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Shared Education Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I inform the House that consent for the Bill, as amended, has been received from the Secretary of State.

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

This is a very short Bill with only two clauses, yet it will have significant implications for the way our institutions do business in the future and for the size of the membership of forthcoming Assemblies. During the previous stages, we stated how, at the heart of the Fresh Start Agreement, there is a common commitment to a better way of doing business. Both the Stormont House Agreement and the Fresh Start Agreement set out a number of proposed changes to the institutions so that they might function more efficiently and economically and better meet the needs of citizens. One proposed change was a reduction in the number of Departments. Another was a commitment to reduce from six to five the number of MLAs returned for each constituency.

Of course, reform of the institutions has been the subject of lengthy and detailed discussion and debate over a considerable time. The Bill represents a major element in the process of reform. We have accepted that this will not in itself resolve inefficiency, but it is an important step in the right direction. The issue addressed in the Bill was the subject of a review and report by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee in 2012. The United Kingdom Government also consulted on the size of the Assembly in August 2012. It was the subject of further detailed consideration during the political process leading to the Stormont House Agreement in December 2014, and it featured in last December's talks process that led to the Fresh Start Agreement.

This is a straightforward Bill with a simple objective: to reduce by one the number of Members returned by each parliamentary constituency, to have effect from the first Assembly election after that of May 2016. It represents a major step on the road to reforming our institutional structures. In fulfilment of that commitment, the Assembly Members (Reduction of Numbers) Bill was introduced to the Assembly on 12 January 2016. It was recognised that, for the Bill to complete its passage before the dissolution of the Assembly at the end of March, it would be necessary for it to proceed by way of accelerated passage. On 25 January, following consultation with the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, the Assembly agreed and voted, with cross-community support, to allow this procedure to apply to the Bill. We are grateful to the Assembly for its support in this matter.

The accelerated passage debate was followed by the Bill's Second Stage on the same day. This demonstrated broad support for the principles of the Bill. One amendment to the Bill at Consideration Stage on 2 February was tabled by the Alliance Party but was not made, and the Bill's two clauses were voted by the Assembly to stand part. The Bill's Further Consideration Stage was taken last Tuesday, when two ministerial amendments were agreed. These were purely technical adjustments needed to ensure that, if there were to be any delay in Royal Assent being obtained, the reduction in the number of MLAs would still apply to the first Assembly election after May of this year.

Overall, there was support for the principle of the Bill to reduce the number of MLAs elected to this place, but differences arose in respect of the timing of the legislation. Some Members wanted the legislation to pass and the proposed reduction to be in place so that it might apply to the May 2016 Assembly election. However, the nature of consensus government or government by agreement is that the detail must be agreed. That is what we have achieved with compromise in the proposal in this Bill. Other Members wished for the legislation to be considered at a later stage, once the outcome of the parliamentary boundary review would be known. However, we remain firmly of the view that the time for reform has come. People want this change, and we must deliver this change.

We have now reached the Bill's Final Stage, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank those who have contributed, through their support or through constructive debate, to getting the Bill to this stage. It has prompted a wide-ranging, informative and, at times, passionate debate. We are also grateful to Members for the interest that they have shown. Although a small Bill, the Assembly Members (Reduction of Numbers) Bill is nevertheless a significant one that will be seen by the electorate as a measure of the Assembly's willingness to play a full part in the streamlining of our institutions of government. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Mr Frew: I, of course, support this Bill at Final Stage. The Bill has been a real long slog, as has been the campaigning for change that we in the DUP have been engrossed in since way back the early 2000s, when we were the only party to support a reduction in the size of government. We see this day as a success. We see that we need to do more. We believe that we should have done more, but we understand that, when you make agreements, that is success and progress. We will honour those agreements where and when they are made.

As the junior Minister stated, it is not the only thing that we want. We have already secured the reduction in Departments. We move towards a day when there will be an opposition in this place. I think that all of that is good for politics in Northern Ireland. It is good for this place, and it assists the businesses and communities that we represent. It is all good today. I think that I used the word "rejoice" the last time around, in Further Consideration Stage. It is something that we have aimed to get to and have aimed to meet, and I am glad that an objective has now been ticked off the DUP wish list.

Mr Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I think that a good friend of mine once said that wish lists are for Christmas, but, anyway, we will deal with something else.

I was not quite sure what the previous Member who spoke meant when he said that the legislation has been a bit of a "long slog". I was beginning to wonder whether he meant a different discussion or whether I had come to the Chamber at the wrong time. Obviously, the Bill has been dealt with by way of accelerated passage.

Perhaps the deliberations over the last several years have been a bit of a long slog; I would agree with that. Obviously, from Sinn Féin's point of view, we made the agreement, and we are happy to stick with and support that agreement to reduce the number of MLAs to be returned to the Assembly following the election after the next one in May. We think that, in the round, it is a balanced and reasonable decision to take.

A lot of people out there have come round to the view that there may well be too many MLAs. I have certainly been on the record in the Chamber as saying that I do not necessarily agree with that. Look at the number of MLAs and even local councillors that we have, and then look at the fact that we have 150-plus quangos out there, which host more than 2,000 people as public appointees. So, although you talk about there being a democratic deficit, you see that there is an awful lot more of a democratic deficit out in quangoland than there is in the Chamber or even in local government. That being said, I think that it is an important part of a process in which we are prepared and quite willing to make changes. I think that the public will support the change. As I have said, Sinn Féin is happy to support this agreement that we reached a few months ago.

Mr Attwood: I, too, welcome the Final Stage of this legislation. I would be more moderate in my language than that which was used by the junior Minister, who said:

She also said that it is a major step forward on reform. Yes, this is a step in the right direction, and, yes, it is reform, but I would be more moderate in the language that describes what is happening today.

I acknowledge that, even if it is a DUP wish list, as Mr Frew indicated, there is an ongoing range of reform measures on the number of Departments, the number of MLAs and the legislation in respect of an opposition. None of that, however, answers the questions that were being tabled over lunchtime in the Long Gallery by one of the community health NGOs, which was making an argument about how the Programme for Government should be shaped in the image of community health responses to health needs in our society. The number of MLAs, the number of Departments and having an opposition do not do one whit of anything to respond to the needs of that NGO in trying to shape health in a different image from the past. What was useful, I thought, was that a senior official from OFMDFM, which has responsibility, in part, for the Programme for Government, was at the meeting, which might indicate some fresh thinking on how to take forward health issues.

Structures do nothing to respond to those needs, unless they are then seen to respond to them. That is the measure of all reform. It is not about reform for the sake of reform or for the aspiration of efficiency and effectiveness; it is about reform in order to more fully and faithfully respond to the needs of the people who were in the Long Gallery earlier today. Ultimately, none of this means anything unless the Programme for Government and the policies pursued by a smaller number of MLAs and Departments live up to the ambitions of those in the Long Gallery and people everywhere. Noting those comments, this is the right option and the right time for this measure of reform, but let us not elevate it to something that is major reform, unless it measures up to what reform is meant to serve, and that is the interests of the people we all represent.

Mr Allen: First, I would like to apologise for coming slightly late and missing the junior Minister's opening remarks.

Members will be well aware that we did not support the accelerated passage of the Bill. We would like to have seen it being brought forward in the next mandate, giving it the time and scrutiny it deserves. Nonetheless, in a democratic society, we were outvoted on that, and we are where we are. We support it going through, rather reluctantly. As I outlined previously, whether we go from six to five or to four does not matter. What matters is that the House delivers a streamlined but effective Government for all the people in Northern Ireland. That will see the House come down to five Members per constituency after the election in May 2016.

It is important to understand and reflect on why we reached the number of 108 MLAs in the Good Friday Agreement. It was to make sure that Members of the House represented each and every individual to the best of their ability. It was to make sure that the House was diverse, inclusive, and brought forward the thoughts of the whole society. Once again, rather reluctantly, we support the passage of the Bill.

Mr Lyttle: If truth be told, I am not feeling 100%, so Members will be glad to hear that I will be as brief as possible. The Alliance Party supports the reduction of the number of MLAs from 108 to 90 — from six MLAs to five in each constituency. Therefore, we support the passage of the Bill

As junior Minister Pengelly referred to in her opening remarks, we created an opportunity, by way of amendment, for parties and MLAs in the House to vote to introduce the change in time for the 2016 election rather than delay it to 2021. I still do not believe that a clear case was made to explain why the delay needs to take place. I have set out our rationale for why we think it should happen sooner, and the most pertinent point for me is the potential savings that could have been made by introducing the change sooner.

Today, I have seen reports about waiting lists in our community that are affecting gynaecology, neurology, ENT, paediatrics, gastroenterology and cardiology. I chaired a meeting of the all-party group on learning disability this morning, and parents, carers and professors communicated a fear that, despite Bamford recommendations, the budget for learning disability services in the Department of Health has decreased since 2007. We also know that social housing maintenance cycles have slipped from eight years to 12 years. I will leave it there.

The Executive and the Assembly need to get serious about how we will make efficiencies to fund some of the most important front-line public services in our community. I fear that, on this occasion, other political parties have sidestepped the difficult decisions that would have released in the region of £11 million savings over the next five years to do that. Those are my concluding remarks. I ask the House to excuse me if I need to retire due to not feeling 100%.

Mr McCallister: The importance of the debate and the overall reforms we have looked at over the last number of months, whether through my Bill about reforming the Assembly and creating an opposition, the reduction in the number of Departments or the reduction in the size of the Assembly, all should be about how we get to a point where we have good governance that is held to account by a robust opposition. That is vital, and I welcome those changes.

As Mr Allen said, it is important to reflect on why we had 108 Members. We may move to having 90 Members with one fewer per constituency — five per constituency in 18 constituencies — but I am concerned about what will happen if we do not have 18 constituencies in 2021 and are then at 80 Members. Is that the size of the Assembly that we want?

It comes back to the point about the need for accelerated passage. I do not think that there is a need to pass the Bill by accelerated passage and to do it at this time.

Mr Poots: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCallister: It could easily have been done in the new mandate.

Mr Poots: Is it not the case that, even if the Assembly went down to 80 Members, Northern Ireland would still have a greater representation per head of population than any of the other devolved Administrations?

Mr McCallister: Absolutely. We would have a different level of representation and for different reasons. We have a different historic context to put that in. I also point out that our local government is a very different animal from that in Scotland or Wales. Scottish local government maybe employs some 100,000 people because it is in charge of delivering certain aspects of social care. When we simply compare the size of this Assembly with the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly, we are not comparing the same levels of function and responsibility. We are also not comparing the need for the inclusion and representation of various sectors of our community. That is something that they do not have to do. I absolutely accept Mr Poots's point that, if you do a straight comparison, of course we are larger. There is an argument in the Welsh Assembly that 60 Members are not enough to provide all the scrutiny and that, with extra powers going, the number should be higher — possibly more like 80.

I simply make the point that, in the Bill, we have not decided what the numbers should be. We have not decided whether we are all broadly agreed that it should be 90, 80 or 75. If 90 is the figure, how do we fill that gap? Do we de-couple from Westminster constituencies, or do we have a top-up list system? We have not yet set out our thought processes on that. There is broad agreement that this Bill is a good thing, but I fear that we will pass it today and then, depending on the 2018 Westminster constituency review, find ourselves going down to 80 or 75 Members in 2021.

Mr Frew: I appreciate the Member giving way. Does the Member not realise that it is better to bank the progress now and have it in the bag? He talks as if legislation cannot be moved, everything is set in stone and we will not have the agility to progress further down the line. I believe that we will and must evolve into something better and slicker, something that our people deserve. Does the Member not think that, if those decisions, which are made outside the House and which affect the House, are made in the next term that we will not be agile enough to have an agreement that will serve our people well?

Mr McCallister: I have no difficulty in agreeing that we should bank success. The point that others have made is this: why use accelerated passage for a Bill that will not apply for over five years? We could easily have done this in the new term and debated all the points very early on. It could have been introduced in late May or June of this year to a new Assembly. This is the point that I make whilst dealing with all the points that our colleagues have brought up as to what size we think the Assembly should be.

I am happy to bank the progress. I welcome the fact that we are at least making some progress and are changing the number of Assembly Members here, as well as reducing the number of Departments. That is important because it helps to drive the delivery of what I like to see as good government. What makes this place so unpopular with all the constituents whom we expect to be speaking to and encouraging to vote is that they do not see the delivery on the ground and do not feel the change that this place can make. The Assembly and the Executive have enormous power over the lives of every citizen in Northern Ireland, yet we do not see this being used to its full potential. Getting to that and reducing numbers will not drive good governance without, at times, changing the culture and achieving a much more policy-based form of politics: a Government held to account by an opposition. However, I will, like other colleagues, support the passage of the Bill.

Mrs Pengelly: I thank Members for their contributions to the Final Stage of the Assembly Members (Reduction of Numbers) Bill and for the issues that they have raised.

As I have stated, it is only a short Bill, but it will have significant implications for the size of the Assembly in future. Reform of the structures of government here is overdue, and the Bill, together with the reduction in the number of Departments that we are also legislating for, shows our commitment to a leaner, more efficient structure of government in Northern Ireland and to an Assembly containing a number of MLAs better suited to the size of the jurisdiction and the range of functions over which it has responsibility. The Bill implements an important commitment from 'A Fresh Start' and sends out a positive message about our willingness to find better ways of doing business together.

I turn to the contributions that were made in the debate. I welcome the support of Alex Maskey and of Paul Frew, who commented that it had been a hard slog. I hope that he was not referring just to my contributions, because, of course, the Bill received accelerated passage. [Laughter.]

However, he welcomed the progress and said that it was all good. I know that many Members in the Chamber will wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment.

Mr Alex Attwood — unsurprisingly, I suppose — gave the Bill a rather muted welcome. I am indeed a relentless optimist on these issues. The Bill is undoubtedly a positive step. Absolutely no one is suggesting that it will resolve all the issues that we have, but it is an important step towards streamlining the Assembly. On his comment about the official from OFMDFM attending earlier today, I can confirm for the Member that that kind of cross-cutting, cross-departmental approach that is focused on changing and improving outcomes is being led at a policy level by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. It is a new and fresh approach, and we will push forward with the new agenda with passion and determination.

I do not agree with Mr Andy Allen that the uncertainty around the issue should continue into the next mandate. We need to get on with it and complete the work, and that is why today is such an important step in that regard. However, I welcome his support for the Bill's Final Stage.

In my opening remarks, I referred to the amendment put forward by the Alliance Party. I know that Mr Chris Lyttle understands the principles of agreement and compromise. I am therefore somewhat baffled as to why he is confused that we are standing by our word and supporting the agreement. That is agreement politics in action, and that is what we will continue to do. We are about reform and efficiency. I am passionate about making this place work, delivering excellent public services and keeping household costs down for our hard-working families, and that is why we are committed to a wider range of improvements and reforms, not just this important Bill today. Progress is being made, and we need to continue to drive it forward. I know that there is the energy and passion to do that in the Executive.

I will now deal with Mr John McCallister's comments. I hear that he is resisting some issues around the 108 MLAs. Perhaps it is the case a little bit that everybody wants change but nobody wants to change. Today, we are voting for that change — something that will impact directly on many people in the Chamber. That is a positive thing, because people expect a better and more efficient Assembly and better and more efficient government. I am firmly of the view that good government is not necessarily about the numbers or about keeping them at a high representative level. Rather, it is about the quality, passion and hard work of the individuals involved to deliver changes and the type of government that we want to see.

I am grateful for the interest that Members have shown. As I said, the Bill is an important and positive step. It is a good step for the Assembly, and it will change things for the better. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that this Bill requires cross-community support at Final Stage.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: As there are Ayes from all sides of the House and no dissenting voices, I am satisfied that cross-community support has been demonstrated. The Assembly Members (Reduction of Numbers) Bill is passed.

Mr Storey (The Minister of Finance and Personnel): I beg to move

Today's Final Stage debate concludes the financial legislative process for the 2015-16 year. To those who say that there has not been enough opportunity to debate the Budget Bill, I point out that the Bill before us has been the subject of much debate over recent weeks. However, I suspect that that will not stop some from making further comment on the Bill this evening. The debate has, in fact, probably strayed much wider than the parameters of the Budget Bill itself. I also point out that the Bill reflects the 2015-16 Budget, which itself was the subject of a debate in this Assembly and subject to wider public consultation. It also reflects the additional changes in year that have been the subject of scrutiny not just by the Committee for Finance and Personnel but all the other departmental Committees. In fact, the Finance and Personnel Committee Chair confirmed that there has, in the Committee's view, been sufficient consultation with it on the Budget Bill, and I thank him and his colleagues again for their work.

The debate to date has been informative, and I welcome the opportunity that Members had to have their say on this important legislation. I also thank the departmental Committees for the level of scrutiny that they have brought to the process. I hope that it is now completely clear to everyone that this Budget Bill not only covers the 2015-16 financial year but provides legal authority for Departments to spend in the first few months of 2016-17. As has also been the subject of much comment over the course of the debate, the 2016-17 Vote on Account had to be adjusted due to the departmental restructuring to nine Departments by May 2016. Whilst that restructuring poses significant challenges, I believe that, with this Bill, we have done all that we can to mitigate the risk that Departments would run out of money or resource cover before the Main Estimates and the Budget Bill receive Royal Assent in the summer.

As this financial year draws to a close, now is an opportune time to reflect on another challenging year. However, with the Fresh Start Agreement, we have paved the way for what I believe is a stable financial environment, despite those who have raised what they see as genuine concerns and issues. I do not want to be disparaging of those who make valuable contributions and raise particular concerns that they have across the piece on our finances. However, we started 2016 in a more stable financial environment than many envisaged would have been the case, given where we came from in 2015.

That stable environment led to the agreement by the Executive and the Assembly of a balanced Budget for 2016-17. That was against the backdrop of not only a highly challenging public expenditure environment next year but an extremely tight timetable set out in the Fresh Start Agreement.

During this financial year, we also embarked on an unprecedented programme — the voluntary exit scheme — across the public sector. The ambition and scale of that undertaking are huge, and it will be critically important that it is managed and managed carefully. We clearly need to realise the projected savings, but we also need to ensure that we can continue to deliver the high-quality services that the people of Northern Ireland rightly deserve.

We also confirmed our intention to reduce our rate of corporation tax to 12·5% from April 2018. The Fresh Start Agreement has provided a further impetus to that commitment, and we need to maximise the potential benefits from that significant economic lever.

Over recent weeks, I have announced my intention to support an additional £40 million for skills in the forthcoming June monitoring round. The intention is that the Department of Education and the new economy Department should receive £20 million each to invest in skills. That will boost our competitiveness and help to ensure that we have the required level of skilled workers to take advantage of the lower rate of corporation tax.

To conclude, this is the final stage in our financial legislative process for 2015-16, and the legislation has already been subject to much debate. I now look forward to hearing any final thoughts from Members on this important piece of legislation.

Mr McKay (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel): Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Members will be well relieved to hear that I intend to be brief in representing the Committee's position. Rather than rehearsing the issues covered in the debates on the Supply resolutions and Second Stage, I will focus my comments primarily on looking forward.

First, however, where the Bill is concerned, as I previously outlined, having undertaken a process of scrutiny at a strategic and departmental level, including the 2015-16 in-year monitoring rounds, the Committee determined that it was content to grant accelerated passage under Standing Order 42(2).

In that regard, the Committee welcomes the engagement with DFP during the various monitoring rounds and on the Supplementary Estimates and the Bill. It was particularly helpful for members to receive clarification on the details of the in-year technical changes to resource and capital allocations of Departments.

In the context of the residual issues to be addressed in the weeks ahead, the Committee reiterates the importance of Departments minimising any year-end underspend to ensure that the Executive keep within the limits of the Budget exchange scheme agreed with the British Treasury. I expect that all the Statutory Committees will closely monitor the forecasting and expenditure of their respective Departments during the remainder of the financial year and, indeed, over the next financial year.

Given that the Bill makes partial provision for 2016-17, I should highlight that, due to the limited time available for scrutiny, the Committee was not in a position to prepare its normal coordinated report on the draft Budget for the next financial year. Whilst acknowledging that the timing of the comprehensive spending review was a key factor in that regard, it is important that I highlight that our Budget process must afford sufficient time for effective scrutiny of the spending plans of Departments. Whilst I suspect that everybody would agree that point, unfortunately, for one reason or another, the last few Budget processes have seen reduced time and opportunity for Committees to add value.

I, therefore, welcome the comments made by the Minister recently when he indicated his willingness for work to resume on the memorandum of understanding (MOU) on the Budget process to meet the needs of the Executive and the Assembly. I understand that departmental officials and Committee staff will meet shortly with a view to progressing the draft memorandum of understanding. When that is finalised and agreed, it should help us to front-load the input of Committees so that their scrutiny and advice are provided at the formative stage of the Budget-setting process and before the Executive have agreed the next multi-year draft Budget.

I look forward to the MOU being put in place, as I believe the guiding principles contained therein could also facilitate more constructive and effective engagement between Departments and their Committees.

Moreover, it has been recognised previously by the Committee, and during the plenary debates in recent weeks, that the legislative stages of the existing Budget and financial processes are cumbersome and in need of reform. Contributions to recent debates have, in my mind, affirmed that there is broad acceptance across all parties that an overhaul of existing processes is needed and should be undertaken. In that regard, the Committee has previously pointed out that such reform, including streamlining the legislative stages of the financial process, could be facilitated through the successful operation of the MOU, which provides for more effective input for Committees and the wider Assembly at the earlier, formative stage of the Budget process. This is, therefore, strategically important work to be concluded over the coming weeks and months, in time for the next Budget process.

Today, on behalf of the Committee, I support the motion.

Mr Attwood: I hope that the Minister was not referring to me when he made his opening remarks, but we will see over the next few minutes whether or not he was.

I want to make very clear in the remarks that I want to make — there are six or seven points that I want to pick up with the Minister — [Interruption.]

Maybe people over there do not want to hear some messages, but, given what Mr McKay has just said on behalf of the Committee, some of my points will be very relevant to what the Committee is looking at in terms of Budget processes. Perhaps sometimes people should listen more attentively.

I want to make it clear that, whilst there was some hint previously that I thought that DSD and even the Social Development Minister were an outreach of DWP, nothing that I am saying is meant to suggest, in any shape or form, that I consider DFP or the Finance Minister to be an outreach of the Treasury, even though, as I will outline, there are signs to the contrary.

The first issue that I want to speak to the Minister about is that if you look at the Budget Bill, you will see that, on virtually every page and in virtually every Department — save, as far as I could see, maybe the Department of Justice and DCAL, and, even there, I think the argument that I am about to make applies — there are streams of European Union funding that sustain the life of those Departments. It is on every page of the Bill, and every Budget Estimate that we are meant to approve today is approved on the basis of streams of European Union funding.

In the week that is in it, the Finance Minister should be clear with the Assembly, with the Confederation of British Industry and with the people from the food and drinks industry who were in the Building today launching their manifesto on the growth of that sector. The Minister, who has a particular responsibility for the overall finances of the Northern Ireland Executive, should tell us what his advice is to all those organisations and to people beyond, and whether he will be voting for or against membership of the European Union come May. That is a fair question, because, on the one hand, we are saying today in this Budget Bill, "Thank you very much, Europe, for Peace funds, structural funds and community initiative funds", yet, on the other hand, we can slap them in the face come May. So my first question to the Minister is this: where do you stand, and what is your advice, given the growing number of voices in Northern Ireland from outside this place that are in favour of membership of the European Union? That is a fair question, because it is based on the detail of the Budget Bill.

I thank the Chair of the Finance Committee, because I was not aware that it is interrogating processes for a review of budgets and the Budget management process. In particular, there is this work on a potential overhaul of existing processes and front-loading them:

That is what Mr McKay said.

My second question to the Minister is this: what is the significance of the legislation debated in Westminster yesterday, which purports to implement the Stormont House Agreement and Fresh Start and has clauses that relate to the Budget processes in Northern Ireland?

I refer the Minister to clause 9 of the Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill, which had its Second Reading in the House of Commons yesterday. He will be aware of it, even if all of us are not. Clause 9 refers to draft Budgets and proposes to amend section 64 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Remember that this has never been discussed in the Chamber; it emerged, somehow or other, in Fresh Start, and I will refer to that in a minute. Although it has not been discussed in this Chamber, the House is expected, before the end of this mandate, to pass a legislative consent motion agreeing to it. We will agree to it, but I want to know what the consequences will be.

Clause 9(2)(1A) of the Bill before Westminster states:

That will be a legal obligation on this Minister, if he continues in post, and he may have earned some stars in that regard. The question that arises is this: where is the draft Budget for a financial year? Mr McKay just talked about the Executive agreeing "the next multi-year Budget". Are we now to have an annual budgetary process — in my view, we need one — like in Dublin, Cardiff, London and Edinburgh? That is what clause 9 says.

The Westminster legislation says that, every year, you have to lay a draft Budget for a financial year and that, 14 days before you do so, you must table a statement specifying the amount of UK funding for that year. So will we now have the annual budgetary process that we should always have had, even though Peter Robinson said in 2008 that he had legal advice to derail that proposition? That is what that legislation states. Is the Finance and Personnel Committee, in its overhaul of existing processes, barking up the wrong tree? There will be a requirement to lay an annual statement on what we are getting from London, which is predicated on an annual Budget. Will we have more of the folly of multi-year Budgets or the annual Budget process that the Good Friday Agreement allowed us to have in 1998? It is a very important question.

There is, of course, another question: why do Fresh Start and the Westminster legislation now require that? When DFP officials came to the OFMDFM Committee, they said that it simply put into law what was already the case for control totals. Why, then, have the London Government put into law something that they borrowed from the so-called 'Fresh Start Agreement'? Paragraph 4.2 on page 27 of that document states:

What is that all about? Is it simply a statement that the London Treasury does not trust the Northern Ireland Executive? It may claim that it has some grounds for not doing so. What else might be behind it? If it is simply saying, "Let's have an annual Budget process", that is a good idea, but is London, through the back door, trying to create a Budget cap for Northern Ireland, just as we have a welfare cap? Will they then impose disciplines on us if they think that we are out of order or in error? I ask the Minister to answer those questions, although I will come back to the issue in a fourth point.

I move on to my third point. In schedule 1 to the Budget Bill that some in the Assembly will approve tonight, at pages 10 and 11 on the DSD allocations, there is reference to:

I have one or two questions that I want to ask the Minister in that regard. The first is simply this: do any of the mitigation moneys referred to in the Budget Bill, in the schedule that I have just read from, in any shape or form mitigate the benefit freezes that will be imposed on people in Northern Ireland from 2016 until 2020 arising from the LCM that was passed by the DUP and Sinn Féin in November? Do the mitigation moneys in any shape or form — even by one penny — mitigate the benefit freezes that the DUP and Sinn Féin signed up to when they endorsed the social security provisions of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill that is going through Westminster by passing the LCM? I ask the Minister this: does the mitigation fund referred to in the Budget Bill and arising from Fresh Start in any shape or form — even by one penny — have any impact on the unilateral decision of a British Minister to reduce the benefits cap below £20,000, if that is what happens over the next four years, as a consequence of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill going through Westminster, which the DUP and Sinn Féin signed up to when they agreed to the LCM that was passed by this Chamber in November? Does the mitigation fund referred to in the Budget Bill do anything to mitigate the proposal that was defeated by the House of Lords only two weeks ago, after commoners in this Chamber — in the DUP and Sinn Féin — voted to allow reductions in ESA by £30 a week, arising from the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, that are a consequence of the LCM that the DUP and Sinn Féin endorsed in November? Does the mitigation fund do anything for those who might suffer the benefits freeze, who might have to live with the consequences of a reduction in the benefit caps or for those who will see £30 ripped from their pockets when ESA might be reduced in future years? I ask the Minister to explicitly say whether he considers all the proposals to be, as Martin McGuinness called them in the Chamber in December, "technicalities"? Are they technicalities, or are they policy decisions that will hit the pockets of many people in this part of Ireland? I wait to hear the Minister's reply.

The Minister spoke at some length in his opening remarks about corporation tax and the announcement of £40 million for skills. I certainly welcome that. However, there are two questions that arise from that assessment. The first refers to the new Budget discipline that arises from clause 9 of the Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill that is going through Westminster. Minister, do you have any anxieties that that clause is among other weapons that will be relied on by London to get their way when it comes to the devolution of corporation tax powers? The Minister, in his opening remarks, understandably spoke with some extravagance about the opportunities that would come with corporation tax powers, but does he have any anxiety that that which will be legislated for in London will be used as a weapon when it comes to the conditions that London will demand only two years from now when it comes to the devolution of corporation tax powers?

Let me be more specific. In the Stormont House Agreement, the last section of the annex on financial matters deals with corporation tax. What strikes you about what ends up being five or six paragraphs in that document is the insistence in the language about the terms under which corporation tax powers will be devolved. Devolution of corporation tax — this is London talking — will be:

That is what London said on corporation tax in December 2014. Look at what they said in 'A Fresh Start' about creating new financial disciplines in respect of Budgets for Northern Ireland and the establishment of a fiscal council. London told the Northern Ireland Executive that the terms of reference and membership of a fiscal council, which is meant to guide this Minister in respect of all his Budgets, have to be agreed with London.

I put it to the Minister that London is closing the circle. They will do corporation tax on their terms and not just on those that we think are most favourable. When London says that the delivery of commitments must be agreed with the London Government, including efficiency measures to put finances on a sustainable basis for the future, what are they getting at? What could be the consequences of that draft Budget clause in the Bill tabled and discussed in Westminster yesterday as regards doing it on their terms? Remember that this is two years away, and this is what London is creating.

Remember what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said when the Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill was in Committee at Westminster in the early part of last year. He said that the switch-on power for corporation tax would be when a balanced and sustainable Budget was agreed, and he did not rule out what Mark Durkan identified as a stick approach. Will the Minister indicate, in his reply, where his conversations with London are in respect of the detail of the devolution of corporation tax powers?

Mr Storey: Will the Member give way?

Mr Attwood: Yes.

Mr Storey: I will come back to the earlier points, but I just want to come in on that point. I do not really know where the Member has been for the last number of weeks. Look at what we are doing: we are approving in the House tonight what is a balanced Budget. Months ago, people told us that we would not be able to get that. It is absolutely right for Her Majesty's Treasury and the sovereign Parliament at Westminster to have discussions with us and to put elements into the Fresh Start Agreement and into legislation that has gone and is going through the House of Commons that says, "These are the ways in which these measures will be delivered".

The exit scheme, which is the way in which we are trying to rebalance the number of people employed in public sector in Northern Ireland, and the way that we have dealt with difficult financial issues are all part of it.

The Member is trying to say is that there is a lot more that we will have to start doing to measure up to what London is looking for from us. We have already started that process and are some way down that road. We will come back to this later, but, given the considerable amount of money that comes from London to ensure that Northern Ireland has a Budget, I have no difficulties with the sovereign Parliament at Westminster having some say in what happens in this part of the United Kingdom.

Mr Attwood: I thank the Minister for that contribution. That benign attitude to the ambitions of Treasury may be very touching, but it may come back in our faces. We are two years from when the devolution of corporation tax is meant to happen. For all the commentary that you have given about balanced and sustainable budgets, I am sure that London are clapping their hands in delight: they had the measure, by and large, of the Northern Ireland Government and the Northern Ireland parties in the financial negotiations in December 2014. That is widely recognised. The issue is whether they have the measure of the Department of Finance and the Executive in the run-up to the devolution of corporation tax.

I remind the Minister of the term "subsequent reform measures". They were not talking about what was agreed at Stormont House on voluntary exit and so on and so forth. They had bigger ambitions, and those are captured in the words that they use. They were clever. The words were:

You just referred to that, but then they added, "and subsequent reform measures". What are the subsequent reform measures? What are they driving at? Remember that they said:

That date is now April 2018. They said that commencement was subject to subsequent reform measures and that those commitments must be agreed with the British Government. Minister, if you are drawing the conclusion that what we have done for the British Government satisfies the threshold of balanced and sustainable finances, I urge you to think again. The words I have quoted have more impact that your interpretation gives them. The words in paragraph 4.2 on page 27 of the Fresh Start Agreement have more impact than your interpretation gives them, and the clause in respect of draft Budgets has more impact than your interpretation gives it. In any case, they will demand their piece of flesh in order to switch on power. That is what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was getting at in Committee on the Corporation Tax Bill. It was spotted by Mark Durkan and was not denied by the Minister. They are looking for more. What will more look like? We can all speculate. If you look at the agenda of the Tory Government, with the sale of ports, more charging for water, more penalties and more financial constraints on our councils, you can see that they are coming back for a lot more. The commitments entered into for 2018 mean that there is a very tight time frame for proper negotiation with London rather than stand-and-deliver politics from London.

I refer to the Written Ministerial Statement by the Minister's predecessor on Thursday 17 December, which outlined various financial interventions, including seven flagship projects at table 4 in the statement. There is only one that I want to deal with for the purposes of this debate, and that is the A5. The DRD table attached, which is therefore part of the Budget Bill, says that the financial allocation for 2016-17 for the A5 is £13·2 million. Whilst that does not build a road and whilst there have been false and broken promises in the past, that was, nonetheless, the declared figure. How does the Minister view the comments made by the Minister for Regional Development in the Chamber yesterday at Question Time, when she said that there were ongoing consultations in respect of the A5 and added that the current consultation:

The Minister for Regional Development said, yesterday, in relation to the budget allocation in the Budget Bill of £13·2 million for the A5, that she might tentatively anticipate a public inquiry into the A5 in autumn 2016. I have a little knowledge in respect of planning. If that is the case, the public inquiry, never mind the planning permission, is not likely to be issued until late in the 2016-17 financial year at best, yet the budget allocation is £13·2 million for the financial year. Will the Minister indicate how it is anticipated that £13·2 million of funding will be spent if the public inquiry will not commence until the autumn and probably will not be concluded until 2017, by which stage it will go to the Minister for a decision, very late in the financial year?

If the Minister were to put on just his finance cap, I think that he might be jumping up and down thinking, "In June monitoring, there's a big sum of money coming from DRD because it's not going to be able to spend it". Will the Minister reconcile that £13·2 million budget allocation for the A5 with what his ministerial colleague said yesterday about the public inquiry not starting until the autumn and the likelihood, therefore, that it would be late in the financial year before a decision could be taken, never mind any work commenced? I presume that the DFP requirement is that you cannot build at risk on a project of this scale. You will have to enter into a tendering process with all of the contractors for all the building. That would suggest to me that the chances of something being built in 2016-17 are declining. No doubt a lot of that large budget pot might be spent on advance work, architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, consultants and all the rest of it. I do not think many people will be too impressed if the first £13·2 million of the budget line goes on professional fees. What is the situation in respect of that money?

I am mindful, of course, that Mr McGuinness has nailed his colours to the mast, as he said himself, in this regard. In autumn last year, he said that he had every expectation that the work would start in just over a year. Unfortunately, I do not see how it can start in just over a year from the autumn of last year, but I would like the Minister to confirm whether he has ambitions around that £13·2 million. Will he say to the Minister for Regional Development, "You're not going to spend any of that. Are you going to give it back to me? I have some other projects that I'm going to talk to you about now". It is a serious point. The Minister's predecessor outlined the spending profile over five years for the A5 and the A6, yet the spending profile for the A5 might be very problematic in year 1. You might want to address all of that when you come to your reply.

The second-last point is this: the big, if you like, material point in the Minister's contribution at the beginning of the debate was corporation tax. It was quite a short speech — I would not have expected it necessarily to be any more than that — but that was the big material point. His argument was that we will invest in skills in order to maximise the benefit of FDI in two years, but, as the experience of the rest of Ireland and other places demonstrates, it is the triangulation of corporation tax, skills and infrastructure that sustains FDI. It is all three. That is why the Minister rightly referred to investment in skills, but I put it to him that, given what I have just said about the A5 and the long lead-in time in respect of the A5 and the A6, infrastructure in the west will not necessarily be scaled up in order to maximise the corporation tax reduction coming in 2018.

This is the point that I want to make to the Minister, and it is a serious point: over this mandate, we have seen the further economic partition of Northern Ireland. That is demonstrated by the spend on roads. If you look at it, you see that, whilst there was a big need to improve road structures in the east of Northern Ireland, that is where all the big road spending has been in this mandate. The Minister will know about the road that is being built from Ballymoney to Ballymena. A road is being built from Larne to Glengormley. The road from Carrickfergus to Jordanstown is now open.

The infrastructure that, with corporation tax, will be part of the architecture to benefit FDI coming has been concentrated in the east. Those roads are necessary for the people and communities of the east, but, at the same time, if the A5 and the A6 are not done — there may even be a question mark over commitments on the A5 in year one — we will have seen the further economic partition of Northern Ireland in the lifetime of this Government. The infrastructure and investment should have been more fully and properly spread across all its citizens, counties and communities. We are going to live with the legacy of the new economic partition of Northern Ireland because, when FDI comes, companies will look to skills and infrastructure. Unfortunately, the infrastructure will be lacking in places that need the lift in relation to all that.

Why do they need the lift? They need it because the record of job creation during 2011-15 is that 73·4% of jobs created were in the area east of the Bann and 26·6% were in the west. Of the jobs promoted, 73·7% — 27,116 — were promoted in the east, and 9,679 were promoted in the west. Every citizen who lives in Northern Ireland should have access to a job. There is no issue about jobs being created everywhere, but, at the same time, when you see the profile of jobs created and jobs promoted, you see that that approach and pattern could be compounded by the fact that there is now a growing infrastructure in the east and there is yet to be a growing roads infrastructure in the west. You can imagine why I would conclude that we are witnessing the new economic partition of Northern Ireland.

You also see it in Belfast. There has been further economic partition of the city of Belfast. Every citizen and constituency should have all support and efforts to get people into work and sustainable jobs. There is no issue with that.

If you look at the figures for Invest Northern Ireland for the four Belfast constituencies on inward visits and jobs created, you will see a parallel to what has happened overall east and west of Northern Ireland. In West Belfast, the inward visits from Invest over the last three years were nine, 14 and 13 respectively; yet, in South Belfast, they were 63, 87 and 61 respectively; and, in East Belfast, they were 53, 56 and 24 respectively. I think those figures tell the story not just about how there has been a new economic partition of the North and how that needs to be radically rectified but that, even within Belfast, there is partition within the constituencies, with a concentration in South and East Belfast and no spread in North and West. I am not taking away from all the worthy comments that the Minister made about skills; I acknowledge them. For all the apparent ambition of the A5 and A6 moneys over the next four years, that is the scale of where we have come from, and that is the scale of the response that is needed. This is not £40 million, and this is not putting in doubt any moneys for the A5, even in year 1.

The final point I want to make is this: where are we with the new funding for the NCA and the PSNI? Moneys were committed through Fresh Start — £160 million for national security and for tackling paramilitary and criminal activity and an additional £5 million from London and £5 million for each of the next five years from the Northern Ireland Executive. Has one penny of the latter Budget line gone to the PSNI and the NCA to date? When can the NCA and the PSNI anticipate that the additional money from London or from the Executive might be made available?

Mr Cree: We often hear Members complaining that those who query a Budget should suggest where any additional moneys should come from to fund other activities. That approach is greatly flawed and is an oversimplification of the matter. The issue is much more basic: a different approach is required. The Budget priorities need to be decided clearly at the start of the process. Once that has been done, a phased Budget would be constructed with key performance indicators agreed by all Departments.

Up to this year, our budgeting has been erratic, with many in-year allocations, projects not started and essential priorities not achieved. For example, there is a social fund of £80 million, and only some £1·5 million has been delivered to those in need. The fact that spend is usually lower than anticipated has meant that overcommitment has been a feature until this current year. That is not good enough and would not be countenanced by the private sector.

Turning now to the Budget, under the Fresh Start Agreement, £10 million has been set aside for tackling paramilitary activity. I believe that the Department of Justice will carry out that work, but there is no strategy on what is to be done. It could be the summer before that work is completed, so half the year could be over before any of the money is spent. I will ask this question: will it be expended within the Budget year at all?

I asked before about the work of the asset management unit. Some £50 million was anticipated during the current year. Again, that is not likely, and the figure was reduced in the November monitoring round. With six weeks to go to the financial year end, how much of the £50 million that was budgeted will be achieved? How did we get it so wrong?

A common complaint is that the Executive and the various Departments fail to consider additional revenue-raising measures to complement the Budget. Was that considered as part of the Budget development, and, if not, why not?

We have just completed four tranches of the voluntary exit scheme, and a further tranche is likely in the new year. I understand that the Executive have agreed a comprehensive programme of public-sector reform arising out of the VES. Can the Minister provide assurance that that work is completed, or is at least at an advanced stage, so that the Northern Ireland Civil Service will be able to operate at peak efficiency? The Department of Finance has a duty to support the other Departments to meet their staffing requirements through effective workforce planning. Is the Minister satisfied that, despite the loss of experience through the VES, the Civil Service will continue to provide high-quality, effective services to the wider public sector?

The Budget also anticipates 30 projects being taken forward that will involve cross-cutting reform and provide overarching governance. Can the Minister elaborate on that work and advise what savings are expected in the Budget year against the cost of £4·5 million?

The Minister is well aware of my opinion that the Budget process needs to be reformed and made more accountable. The Fresh Start Agreement sets out several changes that will have a dramatic effect on Budgets going forward. Mr Attwood has already touched on this. My information is that it will be debated in the House of Commons next Monday, but, if Mr Attwood is correct, it may even have started. Therefore, now is the time to review the whole process. An independent fiscal council will be established and will play a leading role in the future.

I will illustrate some more points about the current Budget. We know that, under the Budget exchange scheme, there are limits to what can be carried forward from the current year. Is it still 0·6% for resource DEL and 1·5% for capital DEL? How much will that be, or do we have to wait for the provisional out-turn figures, which may not be known until June, three months into the Budget year? Or, even more difficult, do we have to wait for the final out-turn stage, which may not be known until January 2017, before we know what our baseline really was for 2016-17?

Barnett consequentials that accrue from the Treasury provide a useful addition to resource and capital DEL. They are not known until late in the year and appear to be treated like a bonus, and they are not built into the Budget figures. Again, I ask the Minister whether he can confirm that that is correct.

Finally, we need to be more definite about which projects we fund in the Budget. They need to be clear and time-bound. Some of the strategies that the Executive decided upon in 2007 have not yet been finalised. There are also examples of many projects that were not carried forward at all and where funds were switched to alternative projects that may have been a Minister's choice or a pet subject under the £1 million rule. It is also interesting that the requirement to seek approval from the Department of Finance and Personnel under that rule will be suspended for the June monitoring round, for the benefit of the new Ministers. I appreciate that the Minister may not have all the information at hand, but I would appreciate his input.

Mr I McCrea: With respect to the Committee and the work that it did, as I have said at other times, the Chair has gone through the detail of the how the Committee scrutinised this. Once again, I want to put on record the good work that was done and the good working relationship that the Committee and the Department had. I noticed that, when he came back in after he had left the Chamber, he had a bit of a smirk on his face. I think that that was more because he was able to miss most of Mr Attwood's speech, unlike the rest of us who sat through it. Whilst I had intended to deal with some of the matters that Mr Attwood raised, a lot of his questions were to the Minister so, on this occasion, I will leave it to the Minister to respond.

One aspect that Mr Attwood referred to was when he queried the issues around the balanced Budget. I recall when we were considering the welfare reform penalties, and, in a previous debate, the Member said that he welcomed those penalties and believed that we should be paying them, because the welfare reforms went too far.

I am glad that, as a result of many months' work — the Minister, although in another post at the time, will know better than most how much time it took — the welfare reform matter was dealt with.

In respect of Mr Attwood, the millions of pounds that we lost in Northern Ireland as a result of welfare penalties certainly would not have helped us to get a balanced Budget if the agreements and what not had not been reached. I will give slight credit to Mr Attwood because, until now, when SDLP speakers have contributed to this debate, all we have heard is complaints about how bad the Budget is. Whilst he was true to form in that sense, at least he showed a glimmer of hope around the £13·2 million that he believes the Finance Minister will have at his disposal later in the financial year. Maybe that is where they have found money to pay for some of the things that they think should happen.

All in all, the process that we went through and the debates we had in respect of the Budget were generally productive. I have said it before, and I will say it again: I am disappointed that the Ulster Unionist Party has consistently attacked the social investment fund and the use of that money.

Mr Nesbitt: Will the Member give way?

Mr I McCrea: I will give way in a second.

I have raised this time and time again in this place. Maybe only a small amount of money has been spent, but a large amount has been allocated in the sense of having been committed to projects. I for one will not speak out against the £1·4 million allocated to my constituency.

Mr Nesbitt: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Maybe he would accept that I have never attacked the principle of the social investment fund. However, would he agree with me that, when you put it in your Programme for Government that you will spend £80 million by the end of March in a particular year and you have spent only £1·5 million and still have £78·5 million in your corporate bank account, you might show a little humility?

Mr I McCrea: Humility? From the Member?

Mr Swann: No, from you.

Mr I McCrea: Well, he may refer to humility needed from me, but I am not so sure that we could not say the same for him.

I have said in this place that I do not believe that the money has been spent as well as it should have been, but I will not allow any Member, including him, to come into the House or indeed go into the public forum and condemn a fund that was set up to help local communities. Yes, it may have spent only a small amount of money, but, as has been said time and time again, there have been commitments, and I believe that they will be delivered on.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I just remind the Member to refer to other Members by their name and not as "him". I also remind the Member at the back not to make remarks from a sedentary position.

Mr I McCrea: I thank you for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for giving way. It is good to hear that the Ulster Unionist Party supports the social investment fund in principle. A number of times around the Chamber in Budget debates — we have heard this not just from the Ulster Unionist Party but from other parties as well — they have said, "Let's use the social investment fund to help healthcare, education or other areas". I do not see how you can say that you are a great fan and supporter of the social investment fund if you want to divert resources from it into other projects.

Mr I McCrea: I thank the Member for his intervention; I could not have put it better myself. That is one of the problems that I have with Members who, in this place and in the public forum, consistently speak out against the social investment fund. I for one am a strong supporter of it. Yes, it would have been better to have had a lot more money spent, but I understand the difficulties around that. I see that the junior Minister has arrived in her place, and she will know as much as anyone how much I have questioned around ensuring that the £1·4 million that was allocated to the Mid Ulster constituency was paid out and that the projects were delivered.

Mrs Pengelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr I McCrea: Yes.

Mrs Pengelly: I am sure that the Member welcomes the fact that part of the reason why the social investment fund has been challenging is that, for the first time — I am sure that the Member for Strangford has heard this from some in his local community as well — this was a fund that applied much, much more widely than the likes of neighbourhood renewal. It applied to many more areas, such as Banbridge, Markethill, mid-Ulster and right across the west of the Province, where hundreds of thousands of pounds — millions of pounds — are going out the door to very good schemes to address need. That was not possible before. If you are going to do things differently, it takes time and effort.

I also want to correct the point that was raised about the money sitting in anybody's bank account. This funding is not sitting in OFMDFM. If the Member for Strangford had some basic knowledge of this, he would know that it sits centrally in the Department of Finance and Personnel, giving flexibility to the Minister for distribution when it is required and dependent on the profile of the social investment fund.

Mr I McCrea: I thank the junior Minister for her intervention and the clarity around that. That is why I make no apology for supporting the investment fund and supporting the delivery of this large amount of money into areas across Northern Ireland. When that is delivered, it will provide a big difference for our communities. I for one will not apologise for it, and I for one will support the delivery of it and encourage all the people in the Departments, whether it is the Finance Minister, who has the money in the centre, or, indeed, the Ministers in OFMDFM or the agencies that deliver the projects, to do it as quickly as possible.

This Budget is a good Budget, and I encourage the Minister to respond in detail to Mr Attwood; I know that he is sitting there with bated breath awaiting those answers. It ill behoves any Member or, indeed, any party to sit in the House and speak against the Budget — some may even vote against the Budget — when they will go out and take the credit for the delivery of many things in it. The people will need to remember that when they look at the parties' manifestos or local literature coming through the door. If they are voting against the Budget, they are voting against the things in the Budget.

Mr Storey: I am sure that there are many watching this — not people in their homes but Members in the Building — who are delighted that I have now risen to my feet at 7.15 pm. There is no guarantee of what time I will sit down at. That will probably dispel all those myths.

In all seriousness, I want to say a word of appreciation and thanks to Members who have expressed their views in the debate this evening. Yes, we will have different views, but I have a responsibility in DFP as the Minister of Finance to do what is a challenging task in a very challenging fiscal environment. It is all about the choices that we make, and ultimately, we collectively will live with the choices that we make. The Member who spoke previously alluded to the fact that there are some who will take advantage of the benefits but will also take advantage of being able to be critical when it suits their political agenda. That is, unfortunately, the way of politics. That is the way things are.

I trust that when they do that, they will do it with factual evidence and will not make some of the spurious comments on budget allocations that have been made recently and even in the House tonight to try to give a particular view and cover to themselves that somehow they are above all the bad decisions that they think have been made.

Mr Lyons: I thank the Minister for giving way. He is absolutely right that people will oppose the Budget but then might want to go out and take credit for some things. Surely, what is worse is that there are Members in the House who criticise or vote against the Budget, yet we have heard no solid, concrete or costed proposals from them on what they would do differently. Surely, this shows that some people are not fit to be in government or in charge of the Department of Finance and Personnel.

Mr Storey: I thank the Member. Obviously, some parties have already decided, before a vote is cast in the Assembly elections, that they will be in opposition, so they do not have much political aspiration anyway. When I go to the polls later this year, it will be with one very clear objective, which is to ensure that my party returns as a party of government and as one that will continue to give leadership in Northern Ireland. I do not want to play second-rate politics, and I do not want to be engaged in going with a confused message like "Are we in or are we out? Are we going to be in opposition?". [Interruption.]

I have to say that there are times when the Ulster Unionist Party discredits itself.

Mr Nesbitt: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Storey: No, I will not give way. I will not give way to the leader of a party who earlier this week put out information that was totally and absolutely —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order, please. I am reluctant to intervene when the Minister is making a speech, but I have to remind him that he is dealing with the Final Stage of the Budget Bill. I ask Members to please be on their best behaviour. I do not expect anyone to be laughing or making remarks from a sedentary position. I am sure that all of us might want to go canvassing, but please do not start it in here.

Mr Storey: Thank you for those comments, Mr Deputy Speaker. I refer to the Member for South Antrim: I will take my seat in the House when ordered to do so by the Speaker and not by a Member from a sedentary position. If any Members want to make comments, they should remember that I am big enough and have been in the House long enough to be dealt with in a respectful manner.

Let me go back to the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, who made a comment this week in relation to the OFMDFM cash advance. He claimed that somehow it was irregular. Let me put it very clearly on the record that I notified Members on 15 February that I had approved a request from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an advance from the Consolidated Fund of up to £20 million. To be clear, as set out in my letter to the Executive, that cash advance does not constitute — let me underscore this in case the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party does not get it — an increase in OFMDFM's budget. It is simply a timing issue.

As Members will be aware, OFMDFM's spring Supplementary Estimate included an increase in the Department's net cash requirement of £25·7 million. Due to the timing of cash payments, up to £20 million of that cash was required in advance of the Budget Bill 2016 being given Royal Assent, at which point the advance will be repaid. In fact, I will recall for the House and for Members that it is not an unusual occurrence; indeed, Members will remember that, in November 2015, a cash advance was required from my Department. If we are going to have a debate and if we are going to be engaged in politics, let us do it, at least, on the basis of accuracy and telling it as it is and not on the basis of putting a spin on it to give the impression that somehow some parties are more over these issues than others.

Let me turn to the issues that were raised by Members. The Chair again referred to the memorandum of understanding. I have reiterated in the House — I repeat it again — that we continue to work with my officials to progress that work. I want to see progress being made on it. I welcome the Chair's comments about the review of the Budget process. That issue has been covered. I appreciate the comments, as always, that were made by Mr Cree on those issues. He is well aware of the comments that I have made about the progress that we want to make on the review of the Budget process, and I am keen to bring that work forward in the time that is available to us.

I now turn to the comments that were made by Mr Attwood. I preface what I say — he knows that this is the case — by commenting that, while we may have our political differences and disagreements — the same goes for other parties in the House — that does not change the fact that we want to have an engagement and genuinely respond to the issues that he raised. However, I have to say that I find it somewhat challenging to be brought to task in the House by the Member to explain two things. First, he wants me to categorically state where I stand in relation to the ongoing debate about Europe. Where has he been in the last few days? My party leader made that very clear, unlike others who have not decided, are going to decide or will see what way the wind is blowing when they think that it may be politically advantageous. It has been made abundantly clear where the DUP stands by the leader of my party. I have no difficulty supporting my leader on that or any other issue. It is probably an uncommon trait for Members to support their leader, given the shenanigans that sometimes go on in other parties in the House.

In case the Member missed it, let me rehearse what my party leader said:

Let us be very clear. If we stay where we are with the deal that is on the table, we will not be able to regain control of our borders; we will not be able to regain control of our money; and we will not be able to regain control of our laws. I do not think that we could be any clearer on our position. However, the issue will be decided by the people of the United Kingdom. It will be decided by a referendum. It is not an election but a referendum. The DUP had hoped to see fundamental changes in that relationship, but there is nothing in the deal that changes our outlook. The people of the United Kingdom and the people of Northern Ireland will, ultimately, determine what their views are in the referendum.

That leads me to his second point. He raised concerns in relation to Westminster. I have no difficulty dealing with our sovereign Parliament at Westminster. The Member may be surprised to hear it, but it is the truth and a fact that I am a unionist. It is because we are part of the United Kingdom and the Union that we have the benefits that come to Northern Ireland.

The Member referred to page after page in the Budget Bill that refer to money that has come from Europe. If you look at the overall figure — it is only indicative; it is not definitive — for what we get from our sovereign Parliament at Westminster and then what we receive from Europe, you will see that it is equivalent only to something like 3%.

Therefore, the vast amount of money that comes into Northern Ireland — the money that pays for our health service, our education and our roads and that ensures that we have the delivery of services, day and daily — comes from our Exchequer at Westminster. Let us remember, however, that were we not in Europe, the Chancellor would have somewhere in the region of an additional £18 billion to £20 billion. You do not have to be a financial wizard to figure out that there would be a benefit if we were to have a share of the money that is going to the European Union daily.

Members have heard me say this before in the House. The debate that we are going to have, and this will be a debate that we will encounter more in the days that lie ahead, has to be based on facts, relevant figures and the reality of the situation. The figures in this Budget are relevant to the services that we deliver. I also want the focus over the next few weeks to be on ensuring that we return to this House people who have the best interests of Northern Ireland, within the United Kingdom, at heart.

I turn now to the Member's comments on what the Chair said about the annual Budget process. We already have an annual Budget process, whereby the Assembly votes on the Budget Bill. Even in the context of the Fresh Start Agreement, that does not preclude the Executive from setting a multi-year Budget. I know that the Member thinks that I was employed by DWP, and now, to a lesser degree or whatever, he thinks that I am employed by Her Majesty's Treasury. I reiterate that I have no concerns about dealing with the Treasury. There are challenges in dealing with the Treasury, as there are challenges in dealing with DWP. I have to say that I would prefer to deal with Her Majesty's Treasury than some Finance Department in Dublin. Of course, in the year that it is, there is a centenary, I understand, of something that happened in 1916, and Members across the Floor will have wished for that centenary to have seen us dealing with the Finance Minister in the Republic. The reality is that that ain't going to happen. I have to deal with the Chancellor and Her Majesty’s Treasury, and I have no difficulty in doing so.

The Fresh Start Agreement simply seeks to ensure that the Assembly does not vote through an annual Budget Bill that breaches Her Majesty's Treasury Budget controls, as set in the UK spending review. I see nothing alarming or concerning in that. In fact, I think that it is something that is right in order to ensure accountability. In the context of our relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom, it is the way in which those issues ought to be handled.

I know that welfare reform is an issue that the Member has experience of, and I would not for one moment belittle or take away from the huge amount of time that he spends reading about and analysing such issues. He keeps his eye on and is well informed about many of the issues in Parliament. The Member knows that, when I was Minister for Social Development, I always ensured that welfare debates bore in mind that we were dealing with people. In debating welfare, we are dealing with people's lives and income. We are dealing with circumstances that are immeasurably more challenging than those faced by any Member. As an MLA, I know all too well the many issues that my constituents face in parts of the constituency when they find themselves in difficult circumstances and have difficult financial choices to make.

I will preface what I want to say with this: we can be very hard and harsh, and the talk about ripping £30 out of people's pockets makes it sounds as though, somehow, we are a heartless bunch, and that we do not care about the disabled, children, the unemployed or those people in difficult circumstances. The reality for us, as an Executive and as an Assembly, is that we spend over £4·8 billion each year in our benefits system, and that is going to rise over the next number of years to somewhere in excess of £6 billion. I do not think that that should be interpreted as ripping £30 out of people's pockets. We need to set it in the context of help and assistance to those who are in need.

The Fresh Start Agreement set aside £345 million for welfare mitigation measures up to 2019-2020. Of course, the Member is well aware of the Evason report and that the Executive have agreed a process as to how they will deal with these issues. I do not believe that it is right for Members to seek from me or from any Finance Minister any assurance that there is not going to be one penny lost from people's incomes. There are changes coming, but there is a process that will ensure that those that we can mitigate will be mitigated. I still believe that, at the heart of it, there will be care and compassion.

Would I want to have more? Yes, any Finance Minister would like to have more. Would we like to go further? I am sure that we would, but here is the issue: when we decide that we want to spend more on welfare mitigation, we are taking money from other places. So, when Members come to the House and refer to waiting lists in our hospitals, issues of capital or resource for our schools, or roads infrastructure, those are the choices that we have to make. I would be less than honourable if I came to the House and did not believe or did not know that we still had a safety net for our communities and our people in a way that reflects their needs and particular circumstances. I trust that the Member has some sense of understanding that it is not about being heartless; it is about being responsive to needs within the financial constraints that we have.

The Member then raised the issue of a partition. I find it strange that a party that failed to convince us of the merits of partition over 100 years now says that we have got partition, but it is partition in Belfast because we have partitioned off North, South, East and West, and we have partitioned Northern Ireland, which is now divided east and west. When the Enterprise Minister and I, as the Finance Minister, speak in the House, I do not see myself just speaking on behalf of one particular part of Northern Ireland. We are Ministers of the Executive for Northern Ireland, and every effort should be made to ensure that, whether it is in Londonderry, Limavady, Lurgan, Ballymena, Ballymoney, Dungannon or Downpatrick — I am going to have to go round you all — Magherafelt or Strabane or Cookstown, it is about ensuring that we deliver for all the people of Northern Ireland.

Yes, we can easily take figures and look at per capita spend, we can look at the visits of investors and then try to read into those figures that somehow a sinister plot is being hatched against those people and that somehow we do not want jobs in West Belfast, Londonderry or Strabane. I do, and I will continue to do, all in my power to ensure that people, irrespective of who they are or where they are, have access to good-quality jobs. If there is one thing that will help Northern Ireland to grow and be prosperous, it is employment. I do not see jobs for Roman Catholics, and I do not see jobs for Protestants: I see jobs for the people of Northern Ireland, and I think that we would all do our constituents a service if we would stop being so negative about this and welcome —

Mrs D Kelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Storey: I will give way, but I want to give way to my colleague first.

I know what it is like, from my constituency, to suffer from unemployment. There are many people who, when they talk about other places, think that somehow to lose JTI was not painful, to lose Michelin was not painful and to lose Patton's was not painful. We realise in North Antrim ,as much, if not more than any, the challenges that there are. Will that deter us from rising to those challenges? No, it will not. I think it should mean that we redouble every effort that we make to bring good-quality employment and opportunities to our communities.

I will give way to my colleague.

Mr Lyons: I thank the Minister for giving way on this issue, and I am very pleased to hear him knock on the head the idea that somehow there is discrimination against certain areas. The Member for West Belfast Mr Attwood mentioned the figures for North and West Belfast versus East and South. Surely one of the reasons why there has been so much investment in East Belfast and South Belfast is not because of who lives there or their religious background but because East Belfast has the harbour estate and South Belfast includes the city centre. Surely those are the reasons why investors are going there; it is not because of any discrimination on behalf of any Department in Northern Ireland.

Mr Storey: Yes. I often bring people to visit this Building, and often we will go into the Senate. Members will know that in the Senate, the three friezes above the visitors' gallery depict the three most prominent industries that Northern Ireland had. Of course, that was when this Building was opened, and we know that we have lost our linen industry, we have lost our shipbuilding industry and there are challenges for our farming industry. Of course, if we were to put up there today who our main employers are, it would be a completely different presentation. I think we have to accept that it is not always going to be possible to have the numbers of jobs located in every town across Northern Ireland in the same way that we did in the past. We need to adapt to that change, and we need to recognise it. Surely the Member is not saying to us that people who live in West Belfast cannot actually cross the Westlink and cannot access the jobs that are available in other parts. I do not want to be derogatory about this, but I think we need to have a sense of realism.

I will give way to my colleague, who probably wants me to mention Banbridge and Portadown.

Mrs D Kelly: You are quite welcome to do that on any occasion, and, indeed, you are quite welcome to invest some of your cash into those constituencies, which are in great need. Minister, my point is on the construction industry, where we have seen a great downturn. Therefore, Minister, given your plea on jobs and your very passionate demand for employment, regardless of where the people come from or where the need is, would you not agree that the Minister for Social Development should step up to the plate and start building houses, particularly for the people in North and West Belfast, who have waited for far, far too long in an area where there are empty sites owned by the Housing Executive, and yet, for some obscure reason — or maybe not — the Minister will not build any houses on those sites?

Mr Storey: I think the Member knows the answer that I am going to give that. I was the Minister for Social Development, and now my colleague Lord Morrow is one of the few Ministers who can actually say that, during our tenure, we have built more houses than was the target in the Programme for Government. Do we want to do more? Yes, we do, but the decision and choice that is going to have to be made is whether the Member's party will support my colleague Lord Morrow when he brings forward proposals for the future of the Housing Executive. We have to recognise that the current structure and the way that the Housing Executive is created does not allow it to borrow money.

Let us put this in some reality. The Savills report made abundantly clear the amount of money we are going to have to invest in our housing stock over the next number of years. Where is that money going to come from? We might wish it to be different but the reality is that, for the Executive's maintenance budget and its capital requirements for building new houses, that money is not as available as we would wish. We are going to have to look at different models for delivery. When I was the Minister for Social Development, I was on the record as saying that in this House. I am now Finance Minister, and I still believe the same thing.

The Member is right: if we get housing right, we will transform our communities by building, and the construction industry will see the benefits of that. I think that that will happen, but it will require the help and assistance of the party opposite, rather than them having sacred cows and saying, "We want to do this. However, to do that, you are not allowed to change this." I think it will be a challenge for the Member's party.

Let me say something, as well, on the issue of investment. I want to come onto the issue that the Member raised about corporation tax. Invest NI has secured approximately £550 million for investment in research and development. There are things that have been funded by Invest NI that are world-leading in their potential and the opportunities that they bring. That means that the agency is well on course to exceed its increased R&D investment target of £585 million. That is over the £36 million of investment loans that have been made to SMEs through the growth loan fund, against a target of £28 million. Yes, there are Members who undoubtedly are so begrudging that they do not even see that that is money that should have been spent; they would spend it differently. However, the companies that have been the beneficiaries and the recipients know who they want to thank for the money that they have received.

Mr Attwood then raised the issue of the A5. He seems to think that I have a cunning plan. Somehow, he thinks I am sitting waiting, very cunningly, on the Regional Development Minister not being able to spend her money this year, and then I have some secret plan that I am going to unveil. If I have such a plan, let me be very clear that it will be in North Antrim, so there is no secret about that.

On a serious point, let me talk about the public consultation. On 11 February, the Regional Development Minister announced publication of the new draft statutory orders and the new environmental statement for the A5 western transport corridor dual carriageway scheme and the commencement of the associated public consultation process. That process will run until 4 April this year and it is likely to lead — as the Minister was right to say — to a further public inquiry in autumn 2016. Subject to the outcome of that inquiry, the money is there to begin that work.

We were criticised when we did not align money to projects. We then aligned money to projects over the period of the incoming Executive, even though we will have new Departments, and the Ministers are not appointed to them.

We have now been criticised because someone has said, "If something happens, how will we deal with it?". We will have to deal with those circumstances. Let me reassure the Member and the House that we are committed to those flagship projects. The Member should take comfort from that.

Let me conclude my comments to Mr Attwood —

Mr Attwood: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Storey: I will give way, yes.

Mr Attwood: The CBI, our hospitality industry, people from the food and drink sector who were in the Building today and all those who trade with Europe — none of whom you referred to — will not be impressed by your enthusiastic endorsement of Brexit.

My question on the A5 was this: on the basis that the public inquiry will not start until the autumn and given the length of such things, the risk of legal challenge and the fact that, on the far side of it, the Minister will have to decide whether the A5 proceeds, how can you say to the House, in this financial year, that a budget line of £12 million or £13 million will be spent? That is unfortunate, but is that not the reality?

Mr Storey: The Member knows all too well, given the way in which we will profile the money and spend it, that that, for a variety of reasons, will always lead to challenges. The Member's colleague talked about building houses. We set targets, and sometimes targets are not met for the simple reason that there are issues with planning applications. I am glad that my colleague Lord Morrow has arrived to take some of the heat about building new houses.

We have made a commitment. We will have to deal with the circumstances as they are, and I trust that we can ensure that progress is made. The money has been committed, and we will do everything in our power to make sure that that project is delivered, along with the new children's hospital, the transport hub, the A6 and all the flagship projects. That is what we have to be held to account for, rather than the doom and gloom prospect that is being painted here tonight.

The Member also referred to infrastructure, skills and FDI. He is right: we are right to develop the infrastructure and to assist with the skills agenda. If we do not do that preparation and put in that investment, there will be challenges ahead for us. The Member referred to a number of organisations and to the European issue, and another raft of organisations has commented nationally on the issue. Over the coming weeks, we will see more and more of that as we get closer to the date of the referendum. I reiterate that that will be an issue when this United Kingdom decides its future, which it needs to do on the basis of the facts and the finance. If it is done on that basis, the outcome will still give us control over our future and over how we spend our money.

I recently heard a Minister — I cannot remember his name — talking about issues that he could have made progress on had he not been hindered by European legislation. My officials have said to me many times, "Minister, you could do this, but you need to be aware of state aid and European regulations". We have been shackled and fettered. Surely it is time for this United Kingdom to make up its mind whether it wants to be unleashed from those shackles or wants further shackles to be imposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order, please. I hope that the Minister realises that I was extremely, I suppose, liberal earlier on, when Members talked about the Easter rising, Brexit and all sorts of things. When those come round a second time, I really have to exert my authority.

Mr Storey: I thank the Deputy Speaker for putting shackles on me, and I will conclude with a few comments in response to the debate.

If I miss some of the detail of the point raised by Mr Cree, I will write to him. He referred to tackling paramilitary activity, and funding of £10 million will be provided for that. The strategy for its use will be produced by June of this year, and the money will then be released.

Mr Cree also referred to business continuity, which is a concern of the Civil Service generally. From speaking to senior managers and permanent secretaries, I know that dealing with the transformation fund and the exit scheme was challenging. However, an important factor in all the voluntary exit schemes supported by the transformation fund is business continuity, and the importance of being able to continue to provide essential public services has been central to the application of restructuring through the fund. The steering group will oversee the allocations from the fund, but it is for individual accounting officers to ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place to manage business continuity with each scheme. I have confidence that that is being done and confidence in the way that it is being handled. I have publicly paid tribute to my colleagues and staff for that, and I think that I can give the assurance that I believe that it will continue in that way.

I conclude by thanking those who have contributed. I have, I think, highlighted the main issues of concern raised by Members. On that note, I commend to Members the 2016 Budget Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the Bill requires cross-community support at Final Stage.