Official Report: Monday 14 February 2022

Mr Speaker: Before commencing today's business, I advise Members that the Business Committee was advised last week that the Minister for the Economy would not be available to answer questions today, even though Members had submitted their questions and they had been published. The Business Committee has agreed to reschedule his Question Time, and it will now take place on Monday 21 February. Members who had been successful in the ballot were given the option of retaining their original question or submitting a new one.

Mr Speaker: If Members wish to be called to make a statement, they should indicate that by continually rising in their place. Those Members who are called will have up to three minutes to make their statement. Members are reminded that their statements will not be subject to debate or questioning and that interventions should not be taken. I will not take points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished.

Ms Flynn: Building more social and affordable homes for workers and families is a priority. I was born and raised in social housing, like many people in our communities and many of my constituents. Everyone should have a safe and secure place to call home. We need to build more social and affordable homes in West Belfast, but we also need to improve and modernise existing homes.

Communities Minister, Deirdre Hargey, has a plan to build 100,000 social and affordable homes over the next 15 years. That will come alongside the biggest shake-up of housing in decades, which will see the Housing Executive being given the power to start building homes again. That is transformative and will make a huge difference to people's lives.

Sinn Féin has been to the fore in delivering social and affordable housing in my constituency of West Belfast. Large projects such as the Glenmona, Blacks Gate and Glen Road developments will see around 1,000 homes being built in the area. That will not only deliver much-needed homes but create new communities and services for the people of West Belfast.

In areas such as West Belfast, houses formerly owned by the Housing Executive are increasingly moving to private hands. As a result, many of the houses have fallen into disrepair, and there is no onus on private landlords to improve the conditions for renters.

One example is the Riverdale area, where vast amounts of housing was bought by a private company. In the ownership of that company, the condition of the houses deteriorated, but, thanks to ongoing lobbying by Sinn Féin, it has been possible to return those homes into public hands. As a result of that move, the tenants of Riverdale will see a £25 million investment that will transform and upgrade their homes to a decent home standard.

I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for Communities for her hard work and the dedication that she has shown by way of her focus on housing and her Private Tenancies Bill. The Minister will leave a lasting legacy of improving people's rights. I hope that, in the next mandate, we will build upon the foundations that she has laid so far and further progress the fundamental change that she has begun. That will make a massive difference to the lives of people in West Belfast and across the North.

Mrs Cameron: A key issue that I have raised on a number of occasions, in the Chamber and at Committee, is the need for further investment at the Antrim Area Hospital. At the outset, I thank the Minister, the Department and the management of the Northern Health and Social Care Trust for their efforts in building business cases to greater develop facilities on the site. The new state-of-the-art mental health inpatient facility, for example, is in design stage and would be a huge boost to service provision. From responses that I have received from the Minister to questions for written answer, I am aware that the Northern Trust has also submitted a range of proposals as part of its recent capital planning review exercise. Those proposals include the development of a new women and children's unit, a permanent 48-bed ward and an ICU block, as well as the upgrade of the site's electrical infrastructure. All are much-needed projects.

It is a well-known fact that Antrim Area Hospital does not have enough beds and operates, consistently, over its established bed numbers. That can impact on patient safety and the quality of service that is provided to patients. Currently, patients can be delayed for many hours in the emergency department, waiting for a bed to be freed up in the hospital. The trust has developed a proposal to bring two modular wards on to the Antrim site, which would give the hospital another 48 badly needed beds, although that is only part of the overall capital investment that is required on the Antrim hospital site to meet current and future service demands.

I understand that the trust and the Department have been working through that business case, and I urge the Minister to ensure its rapid approval so that those beds can be delivered as quickly as possible to help to alleviate the considerable ongoing pressures and anxieties that are felt by patients and staff. We need to ensure that the required capacity is there to provide the best services possible for the public and that the hard-working staff in our trusts have the facilities that they require to enable them to deliver those services. Approval of the proposal for an additional 48 beds would be a significant step forward to achieving that.

Mr McGrath: I offer my congratulations to Kilcoo GAC on its historic win at the weekend as its senior team secured the AIB All-Ireland Senior Club Championship. That win is a testament to not only the team and management but the entire club, their family members and all in the community who have supported the team, stood with them all the way through the journey and dealt with the defeats of the past before they managed to secure this wonderful victory. It is a great recognition for the entire community in Kilcoo. Kilcoo GAC is synonymous with victory, but it is also synonymous with culture and providing a great resource in the local community in which everybody can be involved, play a part and be active.

In leading the club on Saturday, Mickey Moran showed the determination that a good leader needs to show, and it was evident that he had trust from the team. For those of us who were following the match, it did not look as if it was going to go the way of Kilcoo, until towards the end when they got the equaliser in the last few minutes, which brought them to extra time. I am sure that that had everybody in Croke Park on the edge of their seats, as it certainly had for everybody in the community of south Down.

Leadership, dealing with adversity and trying to overcome all the obstacles that exist are lessons that the House could take from Kilcoo as we try to make sure that we can stabilise and have a Government and Executive for the people.

I take the opportunity to congratulate the whole team on their win, to wish them well in their victory and to congratulate the club and the people of Kilcoo.

Dr Aiken: Events on the other side of Europe may seem far from the Assembly, but, in this interconnected and integrated world, the Russian pressure on the Ukraine will have and already is having a direct impact on us. With Russia positioning significant land, air and maritime forces on the borders and in the vicinity of Ukraine's sea and air lanes, the potential for major war on our continent is now very real. The energy crisis and the pushing of many of our most vulnerable people into fuel poverty is also a direct result of fears of a Russian invasion of its neighbour. That the threat of a hybrid conflict involving proxies in eastern Ukraine, Russian nationalists, cyberattacks, violence and more is being ramped up is unmistakable. The fact that the attack is on a precarious democracy seeking closer association with the EU, NATO and the West and will indeed disrupt energy supplies or worse should be a wake-up call for all European and Western allies to double down in responding to Putin's tactics. Instead, we have seen President Biden's misspeaking, the German Government's representative refusing to supply arms and suggestions by some that we should back off and show Putin some respect. As lessons from history show, following any policy of appeasement leads only to further and wider conflict. There is more than a whiff of Munich in the air. The only person who is drawing comfort from any of this is the occupier of the Kremlin.

Here in the Assembly we need to realise that not only has our nation already been directly attacked by Russia twice with chemical and radiological weapons but our health service and critical infrastructure has been under constant cyberattack, much of it by Russian hackers. We need to realise that our and, indeed, Ireland's energy security has already been challenged and that we are not immune from conflict on these islands. We should stand strongly with our Defence and Foreign Secretaries as they call for stronger action. Given that we hear so often from some quarters in the House about the benefits of the European Union, the European Union should be called on to act cohesively, for once, against Russian aggression. The mixed messaging from Paris, Berlin and Budapest does not send the resolute response that is needed. It is also notable that Russia has challenged the Irish to avoid calling for sanctions. Ireland appears to be driven by whatever the EU response is. Maybe, for once, Ireland, as a temporary member of the Security Council, can also take a strong leadership stance and encourage its fellow EU nations to realise that appeasing dictators never leads to good outcomes.

Ms Bradshaw: In late January, I was shocked and appalled to learn that an individual had spray-painted anti-Semitic graffiti at Newforge Lane in my constituency, an area where people frequently walk. Actions like that have a heavy impact on our Jewish community, and I was saddened that such issues remain today. Thankfully, it was not just members of the Jewish community who contacted me about it but other right-thinking members of the public. I duly reported it, and I am grateful to Belfast City Council for promptly removing it. It is our moral duty to defend and support those who are victims of such shocking ignorance and prejudice. I heavily condemn those acts, and I extend my thoughts to all those who were affected by it.

Offering our thoughts will simply not cut it, however. Between 2020 and 2021, the PSNI investigated 39 hate crime incidents against the Jewish community. Six of those occurred in south Belfast. The issue is now far more prominent, and, unfortunately, it is still conspicuous in our communities. The consequence of such hatred is held closely to our hearts, particularly during Holocaust Memorial Day, the day on which the graffiti appeared. It should be a day when we remember the six million Jewish people who were subject to genocide in one of the most appalling atrocities in human history. It is more important than ever that we highlight the effects that such ignorance and hate have on our communities and realise that we have work to do to overcome them. Such acts only encourage conspiracy and hate.

My colleague the Justice Minister Naomi Long has recently outlined her vision for a new hate crime Bill, and I encourage everyone to participate in the public consultation, which closes on 22 March.

The Bill will pave the way for new, much-needed hate crime provisions that will protect victims to a much larger extent. Through the Bill's specifically defining acts of hate crime and the role of the perpetrator, victims will see better support and are ultimately more likely to see justice.

That having been said, the main objective must be to stop hate crime occurring in the first place. Expressions of anti-Semitism, for example, have a grievous impact on a community that already feels vulnerable here. We must take responsibility for promoting, at every turn, awareness raising, compassion and, most importantly, respect. We must all resolutely support our local Jewish community and be clear that this is their home and that they are cherished here.

Miss Woods: My statement is on air quality in Northern Ireland, and I bring to Members' attention a recent publication that showed that officials knew for decades about the seriousness of air pollution in Belfast. We knew in the early 1990s that there was a major problem with air pollution and that emissions needed to be urgently addressed, yet, for over 20 years, it was somehow deemed acceptable that we did not have appropriate legislation in place to tackle it. Dr Gabriel Scally's public health report of 1993 described the air pollution in Belfast as "appalling".

It is not acceptable that we are still in this position. Air pollution costs lives and billions of pounds. It is the biggest environmental threat to health in the United Kingdom. Between 28,000 and 36,000 deaths a year are attributed to long-term exposure, and there is strong evidence that air pollution causes the development of coronary heart disease, stroke, respiratory disease and lung cancer and that it exacerbates asthma, yet we still have no air quality strategy for Northern Ireland.

We have smoke control zones that are not enforced, we have breaches of air quality management areas, and we are not monitoring enough. Particulate matter, which are the tiny particles that cause the most serious health problems, are derived from the burning of wood and oil and from industry and traffic. The WHO says that there is no safe level of exposure to particulate matter (PM) 2·5. It recommends guideline targets that limit the harm to human health, but our legal limit for PM2·5 is not as strict as the level recommended by the WHO; it is more than double that. Whilst other particulate matter, PM10, is monitored in North Down, at Holywood, PM2·5 is not, and we have no PM2·5 monitoring in Bangor.

Frequent exposure to high levels of nitrogen dioxide can cause increased acute respiratory illness, especially in children and those with asthma. We need indoor air quality monitoring too — that is barely referenced in the Department's public discussion document on a clean air strategy for Northern Ireland. In 2019, we in the Green Party did our own air quality monitoring across Belfast and north Down. We installed tubes that monitored nitrogen dioxide around key sites outside schools and health centres. The monitoring equipment was the same as that used by councils and the Department, and the results were independently tested. We did not want to identify breaches, but we did. We identified 28 breaches of national air quality objectives in Belfast and one in north Down. You would expect that to be in a town centre, but no; it was outside a bus stop frequently used by pupils who were going to a local school.

Dirty air does not always capture people's attention, because we cannot see it. That is not the case for everything that we breathe, and we breathe every second of every minute of every day, so we need widespread calls for action. We need to monitor more areas —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Miss Woods: — under stricter limits.

Mr Allister: Later today, the Assembly will debate matters touching upon human rights. There will be those who will have lots to say about that, but they will be the very people who have nothing to say about EU colonialism in Northern Ireland, which is presently the biggest travesty of political rights affecting Northern Ireland.

Colonialism is often vilified as that which involves the imposition on a people of the laws, ways of life and ethos of others, whereby they are imposed upon the object or the subject.

That, of course, is exactly the position that Northern Ireland is in under the protocol. Other people's laws — foreign laws that govern the foreign single market, foreign customs code and foreign VAT regime — under which the protocol puts us are imposed on Northern Ireland with no say, no right to quibble, nor any right to change or amend. It is the very personification of colonialism at its worst.

Here we have a situation in which, because we are in that foreign single market etc, subject to the foreign laws of that foreign market, overseen by a foreign court, the people of Northern Ireland, in all those aspects of our economy, are governed by laws that we do not make and cannot change. Yet, today, some will talk loudly about human rights but will be prepared to trample into the ground the right of the people of Northern Ireland to be governed by the laws that we make in our own nation. I want to call out the hypocrisy of that.

I hear talk about a landing zone for a settlement on the protocol. Any landing zone that keeps Northern Ireland in that position — subject to a foreign single market for goods, customs code and VAT regime — is not a landing zone that can deliver what we need. The ill-gotten sovereignty of the EU over Northern Ireland must be abandoned if the matter is ever to be progressed: nothing else will do.

Mr Carroll: This morning, I was proud to stand with the University and College Union (UCU) at Queen's University as the union began the first of 10 days of strike action. The strike is about a number of issues, but it is primarily about lecturers, higher education workers and teaching assistants pushing back against attacks on their terms and conditions. Pensions are being attacked and undermined by Universities UK, which will make retirement more difficult for current workers and future generations when they retire. The strike is also about the union's four fights, on which they took action last year around issues such as casualisation, the gender and racial pay gap and the disgraceful fact that staff are not paid for the work that they complete and the hours that they do. Institutions here are trying to hide behind this being a "national dispute", but some of them have hundreds of millions of pounds in reserve and have the power to act on terms and conditions without the need for national agreements. I call on Ulster University and Queen's University to make that happen. I also implore the Minister to act beyond words of regret about the action. He needs to intervene and ensure that those institutions step up.

It is not just about friends in UCU being on strike but about creating a momentum in society, with workers and unions being on the march and engaging in combative action to defend those ground down by poverty and inequality. We have a cost of living crisis, while the Executive implement below-inflation pay offers across the board. We have the biggest increase in energy prices in decades, while people are being left to the wolves. If UCU win the dispute, hundreds of thousands of workers will have improved conditions, and it will give confidence to workers and people who are ground down here to take on their employers and the Government.

I extend my solidarity to the UCU workers who are engaging in action today and in the weeks ahead.

Mr McAleer: I take the opportunity to raise concerns about the future agricultural policy, the public consultation on which will close tomorrow. Farmers have been waiting anxiously to see what plans the Minister and the Department will put in place in the wake of Brexit and the loss of EU funding. One of the proposals in the future agricultural policy document is to increase the minimum claim size from the current 3 hectares to 10 hectares. We have concerns that that will have a serious impact on the less-favoured areas (LFAs) and areas of natural constraint (ANCs). We believe that it could have an impact on up to 5,000 small farms, effectively putting them out of business because they would then not be eligible for the proposed resilience payment, which is the successor to the single farm payment. That will be devastating for the businesses affected. Members from rural constituencies will know that one of the only ways to get planning permission in rural areas is to have access to an active farm business number. We believe that it could deprive rural areas of up to 5,000 planning permissions for domestic dwellings in the country every 10 years. That would have an knock-on impact on rural services such as schools and clubs.

Another aspect of the proposal that seriously concerns us is the absence of sheep support. There are no plans in the scheme for sheep support measures. That would leave us at a serious disadvantage compared with the South of Ireland, which has sheep support measures in its policies. The same is true of the area of natural constraint payment. No ANC payment is planned in the new policy. Again, we are seriously disadvantaged compared with the South of Ireland and the rest of the EU.

With regard to generational renewal, there are no concrete proposals for a replacement for the young farmers' scheme. The policy also refers to the historical reference period for getting quotas; however, if you are a new entrant or a young farmer, you may not have that historical reference period, which disadvantages you.

On the role of women, we discovered through a recent AERA Committee inquiry that only 5% of businesses have a woman as the principal farmer. That is a very bad statistic and one that we need to redress. Future agricultural policy should have a role in redressing it, but it has, so far, fallen short.

Concerns have been raised with us that cattle imported from the South may not be eligible for suckler payment. That could impact on the quality of the suckler herd in the North. We also have concerns that, if the South were to refuse to take sheep from the North, that could subsequently impact on the sheep trade. For us, the South and the rest of the EU is the biggest market.

I am disappointed that the Minister did not agree to my requests for an extension to the consultation period. There was only a six-week consultation period, which opened two days before Christmas, when people were distracted by the festive period. I encourage farmers and rural communities to respond to the consultation by —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr McAleer: — tomorrow's deadline.

Mr Frew: I remind the House that our people are being affected by not only high levels of fuel poverty but increases in the general cost of living. People have died over the last number of months, and people die every year because of this issue. We do not take it seriously enough, nor do the Departments. The Department for Communities is responsible for fuel poverty. I do not suggest that everything rests on that Department; there should be a more rounded approach.

Two schemes have been pushed through to help people in fuel poverty. One is for people in crisis. By that stage, in many cases, the damage will already have been done in other factors of their life, including their health, welfare and fitness. The other scheme is for people who qualify through other benefits, and that is a way of catching those people. I understand that that is a slick way of doing things, but there is a swathe of people who work hard, are just about managing and cannot afford to heat their homes. This is about the price of electricity and gas, and those people have to make tough choices.

I note the moves in England by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on rates relief. Some £150 million is coming to us to assist with the issue, and it strikes me that rates relief is a good, sensible way of getting money across the board to assist everyone in that situation. I hope that the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Communities will look at that seriously and sensibly and will try to get that money on the ground as soon as possible.

Fuel poverty is already causing demographic change in my constituency. The rising price of gas means that young people who are fortunate enough to own their home are considering moving back home with their parents and renting out their property. That will have a catastrophic effect on not only those directly affected but society. We need to make sure that we cut this off at the pass, probably for the first time in our history, and get support on the ground as quickly as possible.

Mr McNulty: I wish to speak in support of Daisy Hill Hospital. On 20 January, the Southern Trust announced the withdrawal of emergency surgery from Daisy Hill. That has come as a sore blow and has brought a degree of fear to the people I represent, as we are faced, once again, with an attempt to dilute services at our hospital.

I am fully committed to health service transformation and the need to rationalise our health service. I will refer to a paper that was published in the Journal of Emergency Medicine on 21 May 2021. That study demonstrates that time is associated with all-cause 30-day mortality for patients who remain in emergency departments for more than five hours after their time of arrival. One extra death occurs for every 82 patients who are delayed for more than six to eight hours.

I am open about the fact that I am speaking on behalf of not just the people I represent but the medical staff at Daisy Hill who have come to me confidentially with their concerns about the impact of the proposals on Daisy Hill and on patient safety. I feel humbled by the trust that they have placed in me, and I feel a sense of responsibility to represent their views and concerns. They have reminded me that the median waiting time, which was published last week, for admission to Craigavon Area Hospital is 14 hours and 24 minutes. They pointed to the fact that approximately 40 patients per day are admitted to Craigavon Area Hospital. Their bottom line was that that median wait time, when combined with the finding that one death occurs for every 82 patients who are delayed in emergency departments for more than six to eight hours, means that, every two days, a patient who would have survived if they had been on the ward will die in Craigavon hospital's emergency department. How will redirecting patients from Daisy Hill to Craigavon do anything but add further pressure to Craigavon hospital?

Patient safety has been cited as a central consideration for the trust in deciding to withdraw emergency surgery from Daisy Hill. The argument is that Daisy Hill cannot offer a safe surgical service and that, consequently, the service will be consolidated at Craigavon. By its own admission, the trust has said that that will result in an increased demand for ambulance transport. Diverting to Craigavon's emergency department those ambulance patients who have problems that might require surgery will increase the burden on the Ambulance Service and on Craigavon's emergency department. How does putting further pressure on the Ambulance Service increase patient safety for a child in Kilkeel who is having a prolonged seizure? What about the safety of vulnerable elderly patients in Cullaville for whom surgery is not required but who, due to the nature of their illness, should be looked after by a surgical team?

Daisy Hill Hospital has been treated like it is located at the end of the world. Well, I have news for some of the establishment thinkers: the world does not end at Newry. Daisy Hill is primely and centrally located on the eastern seaboard in order to serve the wider hinterland of the border regions of Armagh, Down, Louth, Monaghan and Cavan. In view of that, I have had a constructive engagement with the Department of Health in the Republic, and the Minister there has expressed a willingness to work with the Minister up here in order to solve those issues. Can the Minister work with him? There has been too much of people saying, "Last to get, first to lose", and we are sick of it.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr McNulty: The Minister needs to work with the Health Minister in the South to solve those issues on a cross-border —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr McNulty: — and rational basis.

Mr Nesbitt: I wish to discuss the proposed — correction: the promised — apology to the victims and survivors of historical and institutional abuse.

It was on 20 January 2017, at the conclusion of his public inquiry, that Sir Anthony Hart published his report. One of his recommendations was that the victims and survivors deserve an apology. It took another five years to the day before the Executive announced that that apology would be made next month, on 11 March. That apology is now in doubt through the lack of a First Minister and deputy First Minister.

There is a workaround. There is a precedent, going back a few years, when, during the hiatus when there was no Executive, the Irish Rugby Football Union (IRFU), of all things, was bidding to host the Rugby World Cup. At a certain point, it needed the Executive to sign off on certain assurances. Without the Executive, the head of the Civil Service came to the leaders of the five parties that were entitled to be at the Executive and encouraged them to sign a letter saying to the effect of, "We are entitled to be in the Executive, and if we were and it was meeting, we would sign to underwrite the financial guarantees". The same thing can happen with the five party leaders today in order to ensure that the apology is made on 11 March. On 11 March, they can stand shoulder to shoulder with the remaining Executive Ministers, and possibly even the Secretary of State, and make an apology, at an appropriate time, that is essential to the mental health and well-being of those people who suffered physically, mentally and emotionally through no fault of their own.

I am reminded of the words of Charles Dickens, writing in 'Great Expectations'. He speaks of memorable days in people's lives, by which he means a day that shapes the rest of your life and wraps you in a chain, sometimes of glorious roses but sometimes of thorns. The victims and survivors of institutional abuse have been wrapped in chains of thorns for their long and brutalised lives. Here is an opportunity to do something that will mean the whole world to some of those victims and survivors. They do not want money or help; they simply want somebody to say, "Sorry. You were hurt through no fault of your own, and that has impacted the rest of your lives". I encourage the five leaders of the Executive parties to come together and make the apology that the victims deserve.

Mr Speaker: Members, please take your ease for a moment or two.

Miss McIlveen (The Minister of Education): I beg to introduce the General Teaching Council (Directions) Bill [NIA 54/17-22], which is a Bill to empower the Department of Education to give binding directions to the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I call the Minister of Education, Miss Michelle McIlveen, to move the Consideration Stage of the School Age Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendment has been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There is a single amendment, which deals with review. I remind Members that, once the debate on the amendment is completed, the Question on the amendment and the clause stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we will proceed.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): We now come to the amendment for debate. I call the Minister of Education to move the amendment.

Miss McIlveen (The Minister of Education): I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I invite the Minister to open the debate. I remind Members that there is no time limit on the debate, as we are dealing with legislation.

Miss McIlveen: I am pleased to introduce the amendment, which will insert a review clause into the School Age Bill. It states:

The Department must also:

It is an extremely important amendment, committing to a review of primary legislation.

At Second Stage, some Members commented on what they perceived to be the relatively narrow nature of the Bill. That is a totally mistaken description. My Bill represents the biggest change in our approach to the school starting age in a generation. A "deferred case" is defined in the Bill as a person who turns four between 1 April and 1 July and who does not start full-time education until the age of five. That provides flexibility to children born between 1 April and 1 July, as they will be able to commence primary education in the September following their fourth birthday or defer entry to primary school until the September following their fifth birthday. The Bill also ensures that children who defer do not reach the lower limit of compulsory school age until after their fifth birthday, which removes the requirement to provide home education for them in the year before they start primary school.

The Bill amends the definition of the upper limit of compulsory school age so that children who defer will continue to receive 12 years of education and will not be able to leave school at the end of year 11, midway through their qualification courses. It is crucial that we ensure that no child is denied the right to complete important qualifications that will impact directly on their life chances in adult years. As I noted earlier, some Members commented on what they perceived to be the relatively narrow choice in, and nature of, the Bill. Giving real choice, however, to the parents of the many thousands of children born in April, May and June each year is in no way narrow or limited reform. Rather, it is unprecedented in its scale and scope. The parent of every young-for-year child in Northern Ireland will have the automatic right of deferral of preschool and primary school for their child. That is one of the most wide-ranging and progressive approaches internationally, and one that is firmly based on the evidence around attainment for young-for-year children.

I also take this opportunity to respond to the comments of some Members at Second Stage as to why deferral was not being extended to children with special educational needs. I remind Members that, under current legislation, children with a statement of special educational needs are already permitted to defer primary school through the policy of overage retention, which permits a second year of preschool, if that is the most appropriate educational approach for their unique educational needs.

At Second Stage, a number of Members also mentioned deferral for children who were born prematurely. I emphasise that my Bill permits deferral for every premature child who is also young for the year. In recent days, however, I have held discussions with TinyLife and others, and they have also made the case for premature children who would have been young for the year if born at term. Those are children who, owing to their prematurity, are born between December and March but had been due to be born between April and June, or even in the summer months, if born at term. Advocates have noted particularly the case of children born at 24 or 25 weeks in late March.

I have been impressed with those arguments. That is why my officials have worked with the Office of the Legislative Counsel to prepare an amendment that will extend the definition of young-for-year children to those who would have been born between 1 April and 1 July, or, indeed, later except for their premature birth. Subject to the satisfactory completion of this stage, I will table that amendment for the Further Consideration Stage immediately after this debate. That approach enshrines fairness and equity, as it means that no child is further disadvantaged and excluded from the young-for-year category due to their prematurity. It focuses on the expected birth date and whether they would have fallen in the young-for-year category if they had been born at term.

In a small number of cases, there will be very premature babies who were born in late March and would have been part of a younger chronological year group had they been born at term. The amendment that I will table at Further Consideration Stage will reflect an approach that representatives of premature children have advocated for many years; one that is based on expected birth date. No longer will any child in Northern Ireland be required to start school a year earlier due to their premature birth. That is very much in line with the evidence around the double disadvantage of being both premature and young for year, and with the broader intent —

Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for giving way. On that point of clarification, I am really glad that that will start in September. Can you confirm whether the parents of children who are currently in preschool or nursery will be able to apply for another paid year of preschool or nursery for their children?

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Member for his intervention. I will return to that issue in my remarks, but, to clarify, yes, that will be the case.

The intent is to avoid a situation where children who are separated in age by almost two chronological years are educated in the same school class. The legislation will give Northern Ireland one of the most progressive and evidence-based approaches in the world.

With regard to preschool, the Bill also amends the regulations to facilitate deferral of preschool education. That means that children who are born between 1 April and 1 July will be prioritised for admission to preschool, either in the year after their third birthday, as is the case now, or, alternatively, if their parents choose to defer preschool admission, in the school year following their fourth birthday.

Preschool is an important stage of early education, with many benefits to long-term educational outcomes. It provides a rich variety of challenging play-based learning activities in a stimulating environment, and helps to prepare children for primary school. The Bill's provisions will ensure that children who defer have the benefit of a high-quality preschool experience in their immediate preschool year prior to starting primary school. I have heard from many parents of young-for-year children who do not want their children to start preschool until the year after their fourth birthday. Parents will, therefore, usually decide to defer prior to preschool, with the child then starting preschool following their fourth birthday and primary school after their fifth birthday. That provides important continuity between preschool and primary school.

However, I wish to clarify for Members that I recognise that some parents will have concerns about their child starting primary school only once they have begun attending preschool. Deferral will be available for those children. Young-for-year children who are enrolled in preschool will also be able to apply for a second funded year of preschool. However, they will not be prioritised above the target-age children who are applying for a first year of preschool. That will ensure that all children have equitable access to preschool provision and that my Department can continue to provide a year of high-quality funded preschool education for every child whose parents want it.

Some parents of young-for-year children who are currently attending preschool and are due to commence primary school in September 2022 are particularly anxious. I confirm that, subject to the Bill receiving Royal Assent, those parents will be able to apply at second stage for a funded preschool place for September.
Turning to the review as proposed by the amendment, I emphasise that it will ensure that our policy with regard to school starting age remains effective and up to date, taking account of all emerging research in that area. I wish to formally record for the Assembly my clear intention that that will be a wide-ranging review to consider whether deferral should be further extended to children who are not young for year, including all premature children, multiple-birth children and children who are looked after, or done on the basis of an assessment of exceptional need.

The review will be led by a senior official in my Department and will include consideration of the views of parents and all key stakeholders and interest groups. I fully expect that work on the review will commence well in advance of the fifth anniversary of the Act and that full consideration will be given to all future options in the best interests of our children.

I also wish to explain the proposed time frames to Members. My revised policy on school starting age commits to putting in place effective monitoring arrangements that will inform evaluation of the effectiveness of the current proposed changes and any need for further intervention. That will include a detailed independent research study to examine the impact of the Bill on young-for-year children who defer and those who do not.

There needs to be an opportunity to consider the experiences of those children through preschool, the Foundation Stage and into Key Stage 1. That will provide a robust evidence base on the impact of the policy in our system. The experience of pupils in our education system must be an integral element of the review. The proposed review amendment provides that a firm commitment to active review is enshrined not only in my Department's policy but in law. I trust that Members will support the amendment.

Mr Lyttle (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I thank the Minister for her remarks. The Education Committee has supported deferred school starting age for a considerable number of years and, as such, welcomes progress on this important provision.

I raised the matter of deferred school start age in my first-day meeting with Education Minister McIlveen, and I welcome the work that she has done to achieve the provision before the end of the mandate. The Education Committee accepted that an exceptional and accelerated approach would be the only way to achieve the legislative reform in this mandate. For those reasons, the Education Committee has played a constructive role to progress the Bill by engaging with the Minister, departmental officials and key stakeholders and by making proposals for amendments that would enhance provisions in the Bill, such as the inclusion of prematurity as a ground for deferred school start age.

We look forward to debating that amendment at Further Consideration Stage, and also the legislative duty to review the operation of the legislation and to report to the Assembly on the effectiveness of its provisions. As such, we welcome the amendment in that regard that is being proposed today.

The new law to permit a deferred school start for children born in April, May or June or, we hope, further to Further Consideration Stage, prematurely, is overdue, but it is the right thing to do. It is significant legislative reform that will provide children born in those circumstances with the option to defer their school start age to help their education and developmental pathway. It is a good example of how an Education Minister, an Education Committee Chair, Deputy Chair, Committee members and key stakeholders can work together to deliver law that will make a positive difference to the lives of children and families in Northern Ireland.

Some matters will need further review, such as the operation of that funded second year of preschool and, indeed, special educational needs provision, but we welcome the provisions that have been made in the Bill for in-depth, expert review of those matters. I therefore thank the Minister and officials for the opportunity to work together on this important matter. We do not always agree on everything, but I hope that the next Assembly will see more examples of this positive endeavour on behalf of families in Northern Ireland.

In closing, I pay tribute to Belfast Mum, TinyLife and Early Years, who led much of the campaigning and informing on this vital issue.

Ms Brogan: First, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate this afternoon. I am pleased that the Assembly has granted accelerated passage for the Bill. Whilst it would be preferable for the legislation to have gone through Committee Stage and to have had in-depth scrutiny, in these circumstances, because we are so close to the end of the mandate and because the legislative change will have a real-life impact on so many young people and their families, it was important that there was no delay to bringing it forward.

When I became an MLA, one of my first meetings was with an organisation that was battling to ensure that there was flexibility with the school starting age. I am pleased for that organisation and the many advocates who have worked hard to bring this change into law, including Belfast Mum, who I have also met. Belfast Mum has been instrumental in bringing the issue into focus and highlighting the need for legislative change. I am pleased for those organisations that this legislation is progressing.

The Bill is certainly a welcome first step in creating the necessary flexibility for parents and children starting their journey through education. The Bill provides an option for the parents of children who, under the current legislation, would be the youngest in the class to defer starting school for a year. There is evidence that some young-for-year children carry a disadvantage for exam grades, but that is not the case across the board. The Bill allows parents to assess their child's readiness for school if they fall into that young-for-year category. Children born prematurely or those with developmental delay who fall into the young-for-year category will also be able to start school a year later. It also means that preschool placement can be deferred for a year to ensure a smooth transfer to primary school.

The Bill also protects a child's right to 12 years of education, regardless of deferral, so children who start late can continue at school beyond the age of 16. I am glad that the Minister has proposed an amendment to review the effectiveness of the definition of "deferred case", which will allow any evidence to support the widening of the option of deferral beyond young-for-year children to be gathered and considered. I also welcome the amendment that the Minister is due to table for the Further Consideration Stage, which will allow babies who were due to be born between 1 April and 1 July but were born prematurely to be included in the legislation. I thank the Minister for that.

I am happy to support this legislation's passing through to the next stage of the process.

Mrs Dodds: First, I place on record our thanks to the Minister for introducing this legislation. As the Chair of the Committee has said, it is a good example of the Minister and the Committee working together to progress things that are good for our children. However, I will also add that it is an example of a Minister who has listened and acted as quickly as possible. We thank the Minister for that.

I also place on record our support for the Bill and for the amendment, which allows for review and report. The Bill will have a big impact on children and families in Northern Ireland, and, as the Minister said, it provides real choice for parents of children who are young for year. Currently, Northern Ireland is unusual in that we have no flexibility for those children who are due to start school. This Bill will bring welcome changes and will not just bring us into line with the other nations of the United Kingdom but give us the most progressive, evidence-based position of all the four nations.

Parents often find that children who are born in the latter part of the qualifying period are immature and not prepared for school. The Bill will address the issues of children who are young for year. I am also glad that the Minister has clarified that the Bill already addresses the issue of children who are born prematurely and who are also young for year. A further amendment at the Further Consideration Stage will deal with those who are born very prematurely before April but whose expected birth date would have been within that period. Those are important changes for families.

The first clause of the Bill deals with the circumstances and terms of deferral. Currently, children who turn four on or before 1 July reach compulsory school age at the beginning of September that year. Children who turn four between 2 July and 31 August do not reach compulsory school age until the following year, when they are five years old. That means that the youngest children in the year start primary school aged four years and two months, while the oldest start at five years and two months. The law also states that, if a parent whose child has reached the compulsory age is not sent to school, then the child's parents are responsible for the child's education. Clearly, not a practical option for most parents or children.

The Bill will allow children born between 1 April and 1 July to commence primary education in the September following their fourth birthday or to defer entry to primary school until the September following their fifth birthday. The Bill will also change the upper limit of compulsory school age for children who defer entry to primary school, ensuring that they receive 12 years of compulsory education like all other children. The Bill will ensure that children who defer will receive preschool education in the year following their fourth birthday. I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that the Bill will be operational in September this year and that children who avail themselves of the change this year will still be able to attend preschool provision.

The Foundation Stage of the Northern Ireland curriculum, where children learn through play, provides flexibility to meet a range of abilities. It is adaptable and appropriate for the vast majority of children, even those who are young for year. Nevertheless, for a small group of children, it is appropriate for them to have a little longer before the commencement of formal education. While many young-for-year pupils do well in their initial year at school, there is much research to say that children born later in the academic year have a more difficult time in starting their education. That gap, of course, narrows as children get older but can still be a factor at later school age. The decision to defer is rightly placed with the parents, who can make the right judgements about their children.

I am pleased that the Minister has clarified that her amendment to review and report, which we welcome, will ensure that the Bill remains relevant, is effective and allows for any further follow-ups and additions to the policy, as deemed necessary. I am pleased that there is consensus in the House about the need for the Bill, and I assure the Minister of our support as she works to ensure its passage.

Mr Butler: Today is a good day. We are not getting the Bill right through at this stage, but today is a good day, because the Minister brings to Consideration Stage a valuable Bill that will be life-changing for some young children and families. Fair play to the Minister. Later, Minister Swann will bring the Adoption and Children Bill. Hopefully, that will give the people out there who are listening today some hope that these institutions have serious value and that, when we debate and progress legislation, we can change people's lives. I hope that politicians are also listening to that today.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that the crucial contribution from Belfast Mum, as has been mentioned a few times already, has been amazing and that we have to pay tribute to their determination, their ferocity and their commitment to the issue?

Mr Butler: Absolutely. I am sure that Belfast Mum's cheeks will be red. She has been relentless over this past while. It is not just Belfast Mum; it is Tiny Life and Alison McNulty. I pay tribute to a Lagan Valley constituent who has been bending my ear for some time, Rosalind Bloomfield. She will similarly be embarrassed.

Minister, credit to you for introducing the Bill and for the manner in which you did so. In a previous debate, we touched on the fact that accelerated passage is not normally appropriate, but, in this instance, it absolutely is. I accept your position on the Bill's ambition and some of the things that have been set aside. I recognise the amendment that you have tabled for today, working with the Education Committee. That brings serious value and gives a safeguard to measure the terminology that is used and the effectiveness, and the time frame is absolutely right.

I am glad that you have allowed us the opportunity to talk about the potential for further amendments at Further Consideration Stage. From my perspective, I have been passionate about the issue, in particular, with regard to premature babies. Studies have said multiple things, but having provision in the Bill that allows us to empower parents, perhaps in conjunction with professionals, to avail themselves of a facility is something that we need to be excited about. I sincerely hope that, in the near future — it is not within the scope of this Bill — we can look at the ambition and perhaps expansion of the Bill to build on the things around SEN and the second funded year. It is not in our gift at the moment, budgets are constrained, and we have lots of things to think about.

I welcome the amendment and the Bill. I look forward to its getting on the statute book. Thank you, Minister.

Mr Newton: I support the Bill and the amendment. I thank the Minister. During a previous debate, the Minister promised that she had taken note of some of the queries that were raised. I thank her for her prompt action in tabling the amendment on a review and for the her words, which provided a detailed outline of how the review will be carried out, the approach and the methodology that she will use and the need for it to be carried out by a senior member of her Department. All that is extremely welcome news.

Others have said it, but it is worth repeating that it is clear that children who are born prematurely need additional support and intervention in the education system. I am pleased that the Minister has recognised the need to increase the awareness, understanding and support across the education system for the particular needs of premature children and that the Department aims to ensure that all our children receive appropriate support during their early years — Mrs Dodds referred to that — and that children with additional needs or disabilities who are at greatest risk of poor longer-term outcomes receive additional support at the earliest opportunity.

The Minister indicated that she had had 755 responses to her consultation. The largest number was from parents. It was mentioned during a previous debate that the Bill has been driven from the grassroots — from parents and from organisations made up of parents and concerned about children. It has been a grassroots-driven initiative to which the Minister has responded. Indeed, it is worthy of mention that, of those who responded, 93% strongly agreed that there should be more flexibility in our education system for some children to defer school starting age; 90% strongly agreed or agreed that deferral should be available on parental request to any young child born between April and July; 75% strongly agreed or agreed that, in most cases, applications for deferral should be made at the usual time of applying for preschool; 75% strongly agreed or agreed that children who defer should receive one year of government-funded preschool in the same manner as other children in the year group; and 86% thought that deferral should also be available for premature children who are not young for year. Seeing such a positive response, such initiative and the Minister and the Department responding in such a way speaks well for the future of the Bill and our children's education.

A multifaceted win has been created. It is a win for the child or the pupil, who will get the best possible start to their education. It is a win for the parents, because the Bill will provide the additional early years support and address the issue of supporting the child or pupil in their development. It is a win for the Minister and the Department, which responded so positively to parental concerns; indeed, they supported those concerns by introducing the legislation. It is a win in that the implementation of the legislation will be based on best practice in other jurisdictions, learning from experience elsewhere, and it is a win in that the amendment provides the opportunity to improve the legislation on the basis of what will be experienced and learned from its operation.

It is not often that something of such good value comes to the House. It is good value in that the explanatory and financial memorandum tells us that the Bill can be implemented with limited financial implications. This is a good day, as others have said. This is a good day for the Assembly, for parents and for the education of children who were born prematurely.

Miss McIlveen: In concluding the debate, I thank all Members who spoke to this important amendment. I also thank them for their supportive remarks. It is clear that there is widespread consensus on the need for greater flexibility for young-for-year children. My Bill provides a unique opportunity to benefit our children. No longer will there be a one-size-fits-all approach to starting school; rather, parents will decide the right approach for their child.

All young-for-year children and all those born prematurely who would have been young-for-year if born at term will have the option of deferral. The Bill will give them time to play, to flourish and to start school at the best possible time for them. My Bill will sit alongside other important Bills passed in recent days as a valuable legacy of the work of the Assembly on behalf of society.

I emphasise that the proposed review amendment will ensure that the scope and nature of our approach to school starting age are kept under active review by the Department of Education. Prior to my taking office, many parents and stakeholders had lobbied on the issue for a significant number of years. The amendment means that a firm commitment to active review is enshrined not only in my Department's policy commitments but in law. The Department will review all new evidence, including, most importantly, evidence on the impact of deferral in our education system. I commend this important amendment to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): That concludes the Consideration Stage of the School Age Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. As Further Consideration Stage is scheduled for Monday 21 February, I highlight to Members that the deadline for amendments is 9.30 am on Wednesday, so there is a limited period for any further amendments. I just wanted to draw that to your attention.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I call the Minister of Health, Robin Swann, to move the Consideration Stage of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I advise Members that, when the Bill was introduced, the front cover had a reference to section 63 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That was affixed in error and will be removed from the Bill when it is reprinted after Consideration Stage.

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are 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 2, 22 to 46 and 48 to 60, which deal with review, regulations and consequential matters. The second debate will be on amendment Nos 3 to 13 and amendment No 47, which deal with access to support services and disclosure of information. The third debate will be on amendment Nos 14 to 21, which deal with Children Order amendments and opposition to clause 143 stand part.

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 is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points. If that is clear, we will proceed. I remind Members that there are no time limits.

No amendments have been tabled to clauses 1 and 2. I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group those clauses for the Question on stand part.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2, 22 to 46 and 48 to 60. Members may wish to note that amendment No 58 is a paving amendment to amendment No 59. In this group, amendment No 60 is consequential to amendment No 52. I call the Minister of Health to move amendment No 1 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Mr Swann (The Minister of Health): I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Swann: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to be able to open the debate and move amendment No 1. I thank you for permitting me to do so remotely, not least because the Bill has been long-awaited by all who are involved in the adoption process and by those who seek improvements for children and young people in and on the edges of care. The moving of such a significant Bill at Consideration Stage marks a further key milestone in its progression. I firmly believe that it will make a real difference to the lives of adopted children and adults; their adoptive parents and birth relatives; children in care; children on the edge of care; and care leavers.

Members will be aware that Ms Dillon and I tabled amendments to insert new clauses aimed at ensuring the preservation of records relating to women and children in mother-and-baby institutions, workhouses and the Magdalene laundries. Those new clauses were intended to give effect to the truth recovery design panel's recommendation that immediate action be taken to create a statutory requirement on all relevant record holders to preserve and not destroy such information. The records that the new clauses sought to protect are a significant source of information and evidence for the future statutory public inquiry and the permanent comprehensive independent repository of historical institutional and adoption records and other records on children in state care. Unfortunately, those amendments were not selected for debate today as they were deemed to be outside the scope of the Bill. Members will be aware —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I remind the Minister not to debate amendments that were not selected. I invite the Minister to continue.

Mr Swann: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am conscious of that, but I thought that, while speaking on this group, it is important to establish where we are. That is not in any way to challenge you or the Speaker’s determination; it is to inform those who have taken an extreme interest in the Bill. I wanted to update Members, as well as the Committee, that my party, along with others, is assessing whether it would be possible to take those clauses forward by way of a private Member’s Bill in the absence of an Executive, because that is now the only option available in this mandate. It would be extremely challenging on the ground, given the time available alone, although I have initiated the process.

Members are aware that that is an issue of grave significance to victims and survivors of the institutions. I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you will agree with me that we, as a legislature, should do everything possible to try to enshrine in law the preservation of relevant records related to the institutions as quickly as possible. I would welcome other Members' support if we get to the point of a private Member's Bill. If it is not possible to pass a standalone Bill before the dissolution of the Assembly, it will be a matter for the incoming Minister of Health to decide how best to give effect to that panel recommendation in the next mandate.

I place on record my thanks to the Chair, the members and the staff of the Health Committee for the extremely thorough and efficient manner in which they conducted their scrutiny of such a substantial Bill. The Committee's report, published on 28 January, is testament to their hard work, given the pressing nature of the timetable as we fast approach the end of this mandate. The timely conclusion of the Committee Stage is such a significant achievement that it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge their work. While many of the amendments that I propose are technical in nature, a number of them are as a direct result of the Committee's scrutiny and engagement with stakeholders, and I believe that they will enhance provisions in the Bill. The amendments were drafted by the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC), working closely with my officials, and I thank them both for delivering those within such a challenging timescale.

In this group, as well as amendment No 1, I will speak to amendment Nos 2, 22 to 46 and 48 to 60. I propose to deal with amendment Nos 1, 2, 22 to 42, 46, 48 to 50, 52 to 57 and 60, which are amendments that relate to the dissolution of the regional board. As Members will be aware, the Health and Social Care Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 makes provision for the Regional Health and Social Care Board to be dissolved. The Adoption and Children Bill needs to be amended to remove references to "Regional Board" where they appear. Amendment No 2 will amend clause 3 to remove the regional board from the definition of an adoption authority, although Members should be assured that each health and social care trust will continue to be the adoption authority in its area. As a result of amendments to be made by the Health and Social Care Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, the Department will no longer need to make a power to prescribe, for the purpose of the Bill, the operational area of each health and social care trust. Instead, any reference to the operational area of a trust will be as specified under paragraph 3A of schedule 3 to the 1991 Order. Amendment No 1 will provide for such changes to be made to clause 3.

Amendment Nos 53 to 57 will amend transitional provisions in schedule 4 to the Bill. Again, they are to remove references to the regional board from the powers to enable elements of the new adoption support services framework to be implemented in advance of the Bill's full implementation.

Clauses 144 to 150, which relate to the Northern Ireland Adoption and Children Act register (NIACAR), will also be amended to substitute references to the "Regional Board" with references to the "Department". Amendment Nos 22 to 42 provide for that, and, as a result, the Department will be responsible for establishing and maintaining the register.

The definition of "Regional Board" will be removed from the interpretation clause — clause 158 — on the basis that, on dissolution of the board, such a definition will no longer be required. Amendment No 46 provides for that. The remaining amendments — amendment Nos 48 to 50, 52 and 60 — will make consequential amendments to the 1991 Order and to the Health and Social Care Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 and, once enacted, will repeal some of the provisions in the 2022 Act. Those are technical matters that will be required as a result of the eventual repeal of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 by the Adoption and Children Bill.

I turn now to amendment Nos 43 and 44, which amend the procedure under which regulations must be made to ensure that they are subject to a higher degree of Assembly scrutiny. In her report on the Bill's delegated powers, the Examiner of Statutory Roles suggested that the Committee may wish to consider whether the required level of Assembly control should be altered from negative to affirmative resolution for certain regulations to be made under seven of the Bill's clauses: clauses 24, 42, 52, 77, 130, 149 and 150. I am proposing amendments to four of those clauses, three of which fall within this group of amendments. The other clause falls within the amendments to be considered as part of group 3.

I will deal first with clause 42, which provides a power for my Department to prescribe in regulation:

That is in accordance with clause 155. The negative resolution procedure would apply when making those regulations.

Amendment No 43 will amend clause 155(2) to include regulations made under:

in the list of regulations. As a result, clause 42 regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, and that will be consistent with the approach being taken with similar regulations. I thank the Member for North Antrim for drawing that to the attention of the House in the Bill's Second Stage debate.

I turn now to two other clauses. Clause 149 provides for regulations to allow for the search and inspection of the Northern Ireland Adoption and Children Act register by prospective adopters who are suitable to adopt a child to enable them to identify a child on the register for whom they might be appropriate adopters. Clause 150 provides for regulations that relate to searches and inspections of the register by adoption agencies.

Other regulations that relate to the NIACAR are to be made under clauses 144, 146, 147 and 148. Those are to be made by the affirmative resolution procedure, given the nature of the information contained in the database. Having reviewed the position, I consider it appropriate that any regulations made under clause 149 or 150 are subject to the same procedure. That will ensure consistency of approach for all regulations that relate to the NIACAR.

Amendment No 44 will amend clause 155 to include in the list of regulations those that are subject to affirmative resolution procedure in subsection (2) and the regulations that are made under clauses 149 and 150.

I consider that the regulations to be made under the remaining clauses — clauses 24, 52 and 57 — are mainly procedural in nature. On that basis, they should remain subject to negative resolution procedure, and I have not, therefore, proposed any amendment to those clauses.

Amendment No 45, which was tabled by the Committee for Health, will place a requirement on my Department to review and report on progress on the implementation of the Bill's provisions. The requirement would not apply until as soon as practicable after the third anniversary of the commencement of each of the provisions in parts 1 and 2 and at least every five years thereafter. Again, in relation to each of the provisions that have been commenced, the Department will have the power to specify in regulations a date for the requirements to cease to have effect at any time after the tenth anniversary of the Act's Royal Assent.

In its report on the Bill, the Committee notes that this legislation has been delayed a number of times over the past decade. In order to provide the Assembly, the Committee and stakeholders with assurance that implementation of the legislation is a priority for my Department, the Committee felt that there should be a requirement on the Department of Health to report on the implementation of this legislation.

We are all aware of the many challenges and delays in bringing this Bill forward. However, my Department has continued to prioritise the Bill, and I can assure Members that that will continue to be the case during the implementation process. In line with best practice in relation to any policy changes or legislation, the intention is that departmental officials will conduct an ongoing review of whether, and the extent to which, the Bill's intended outcomes have been met following the implementation of the relevant provisions. That process will then inform any report that is required in order to meet the new statutory duty, and I do not, therefore, intend to oppose the introduction of a statutory duty on the Department to report on implementation.

I do, however, have one concern, and that relates to the fact that the duty to report will only cease to apply if the Department makes further regulations and that it may only do so after 10 years have elapsed since Royal Assent. Even if all the provisions were implemented much earlier than that, it would be more appropriate to include a sunset provision so that the duty would automatically cease to apply after a specified period. So, should amendment No 45 be agreed to, I intend at Further Consideration Stage to table a technical amendment to the proposed new clause to introduce a sunset provision.

I turn now to amendment No 51, which makes a consequential amendment to the Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003. Paragraph 6 of schedule 2 to the 2003 Order provides that legal aid services will not be funded for the provision of advice, assistance or representation to any guardian ad litem for the purpose of proceedings under the Children Order. It does not include any equivalent exemption in relation to a guardian ad litem currently appointed for the purpose of adoption proceedings under article 66 of the Adoption Order 1987. Article 66 of the 1987 Order will be repealed and replaced by clause 106 of the Bill. Under that clause, a children's court guardian, which is the new title for the guardian ad litem introduced by the Bill, will be appointed for applications for the making, varying or revocation of an adoption placement order; the making of adoption order applications for the making, varying or revocation of any order for contact during placement for adoption; and the making of an order under clause 84 that gives parental responsibility prior to the adoption board.

My Department has agreed with the Department of Justice that a consequential amendment should be made at paragraph 6 of schedule 2 to the 2003 Order. The amendment will provide that legal aid services will not be funded for the provision of advice, assistance or representation of any children's court guardian for the purpose of proceedings under clause 106 of the Bill. Amendment No 51 will provide for that and will ensure that there is consistency of approach to children's court guardians, whether they are appointed under the Children Order or the Adoption and Children Bill.

Finally, in this group, I turn to amendment Nos 58 and 59, which deal with the repeal of the Adoption (Hague Convention) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. My Department has determined, based on legal advice from the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO) and the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) that outdated legislation giving effect to an international adoption convention that is no longer in operation — that is, the Adoption (Hague Convention) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 — should be repealed. Amendment No 59 will insert a provision in schedule 5 to the Bill to repeal the 1969 Act, and amendment No 58 will amend schedule 4 to insert savings provisions to ensure that the future rights to anyone adopted through a convention adoption order under the 1969 Act will not be negatively affected by its repeal.

I thank Members for bearing with me, and I look forward to hearing their views on the amendments in the group.

Mr Allister: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification that is more likely to be relevant when the Minister comes to sum up. The Minister is addressing us remotely: is there a facility to intervene on him?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): There are practical, technical limitations, and, unfortunately, that is not the case. If Members wish to make a point, they should do so, and the Minister will have an opportunity to come back to it when he winds up at the end of the group of amendments.

Mr Allister: Further to that point of order, I have to accept what you say, but, in these debates, I very often find that the most useful moment is when one is able to ask the Minister who is winding up to clarify a certain point. If we are to be denied that opportunity, the debate will be the poorer for it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Member has put his point on the record. The Assembly has a decision to make as we go through each point. If Members are not satisfied, they can determine that accordingly. We are following the best procedures, as agreed by the Business Committee.

I advise Members that, although I allowed the Minister significant leeway during his contribution, when they make their contribution to the debate, it should be on the amendments that have been selected by the Speaker for today's debate.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): Before I begin, I send my best wishes to the Minister, in the light of his having tested positive for COVID, and I wish him and his family all the very best for a speedy recovery and limited impact.

During the debate on this group, I will give a brief overview of the Committee's scrutiny of the Bill and make some further comments on the Committee's view on some of the Department's amendments. In the subsequent debates on groups 2 and 3, I will provide further information on the Committee's reasoning and consideration of its proposed amendments. At the outset of the debate, I declare an interest as a qualified social worker currently on a career break.

The Adoption and Children Bill is long-awaited, and its introduction was welcomed by the Committee and the sector. It is a large Bill with 160 clauses and four schedules. It is probably one of the most important Bills that the Assembly and our Committee have had to consider, given the vulnerabilities not only of young people in particular but of their families in this area of life. Those are some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in our society, and it is important — and, as has been noted repeatedly, quite overdue — that the Bill is approved.

The Bill was introduced on 20 September and passed Second Stage on 5 October. It seeks to reform the legislative framework governing adoption, making it more consistent with the principles and provisions of the Children Order 1995 and with international human rights requirements. The aim of the Bill is to make the adoption process as efficient as possible by eliminating unnecessary delay in the system. The Department has said that the child will be placed at the centre of the process, and the Committee welcomes that. The Bill also aims to extend and strengthen provision in the 1995 Order so as to enhance the services provided to children and their parents and carers and to improve outcomes for looked-after children, including the reintroduction of the special guardianship order.

Due to the limited time that was available to the Committee to scrutinise such a large and complex Bill and the Committee's workload with six other Bills, the Committee agreed to issue its call for evidence at the end of July, prior to the Bill's introduction in the Assembly. The Committee undertook early consultation, following confirmation from the Speaker that the Bill was within legislative competence and confirmation from the Department that there were no planned changes to the Bill. Due to the size of the Bill, the Committee was briefed by officials on the principles of the Bill over two weeks on 23 and 30 September. The call for evidence closed on 8 October, which allowed for a longer consultation period and meant that organisations had sufficient time to provide detailed responses to the call for evidence. The Committee received a total of 18 written submissions from organisations. I thank each and every one of those organisations that provided written evidence to the Committee.

The Committee held a total of eight formal evidence sessions on the Bill and was briefed by the Commissioner for Children and Young People, the Human Rights Commission, the NSPCC, Barnardo's, Family Care Adoption Services, Family Routes, Adoption UK, the Fostering Network, the British Association of Social Workers, Action for Children and Home for Good. I place on record my thanks and those of the Committee to all those organisations for providing us with their views on the Bill. Many of the issues that were raised in evidence have been reflected in the Committee's tabled amendments, and we thank all those organisations for their input. I will cover some of the evidence that they provided when I look at the particular amendments in each group.

I will say, however, that in all the submissions that we received and during the oral evidence sessions, the organisations outlined the importance of the Bill's passing in this mandate. The organisations stated that it is important that the Committee should scrutinise in detail the sets of regulations that will come in the next mandate in order to implement the Bill. The Department said that over 20 sets of regulations will need to be brought forward in order to implement the Bill. During its evidence, the Department said that it is planning a phased approach to introducing the regulations, which will take place over a three-year period starting in the 2023-24 financial year. The Committee has requested sight of the timetable and recommends that the incoming Committee closely follows and scrutinises the implementation of the regulations that will give effect to this Bill.

The Committee also conducted a number of informal sessions in order to discuss issues relating to the Bill directly with those who will be most impacted by it. The Committee thanks all those parents and young people who took part in the sessions for sharing their expertise and experience with us; we found it extremely useful. I particularly want to thank the young people who provided advice and shared their experiences with us. We heard some very heartening messages around the work that has been undertaken and also some issues of concern, which we have tried to reflect in our report and in our amendments.

The informal sessions highlighted common themes that the Committee would like the Department to consider in implementing the Bill. All three groups that we met highlighted inconsistency in social work practice within and across trusts. The Committee understands that there is considerable pressure on social work staff and that that has been exacerbated by the pandemic. However, the Department needs to consider the current workforce and to ensure that there are sufficient social care workers to provide the help and support that children and families need and ensure that there is a consistent approach to engagement with children and young people across the board.

The groups that we met highlighted the good work of charities in the sector and the support, training and programmes that they provide to children and young people and their families. The Committee also welcomed the input from the community and voluntary sector in that regard. The Committee encourages the Department to look at the support and programmes provided by the sector and to consider providing resource to expand the programmes that are currently delivered.

The groups all agreed that there needed to be a better link between social care and education and that the lack of engagement between the two causes problems for children and families. The Committee would like to see better engagement between social care and schools to provide the necessary support for children and young people in their journey through education and training. The Committee hopes that the clause to promote, facilitate and support achievement and development in education, training and support will provide that link.

The young people whom the Committee met all highlighted the importance of their voice and views being heard when decisions are made about their care and their future. It struck me when one of the young people said to members, "Give us options. When you have options, you have a voice". That is a really poignant and important point to consider. The Committee would like to see a change in processes that will ensure that the voices of children and young people are clearly heard, taken into account and acted on when decisions are made about their care and future arrangements.

The Committee welcomes programmes such as Going the Extra Mile (GEM) that provide support to young people and families after the age of 18. However, we ask the Department to consider how additional support can be provided to young people over the age of 18 who want to stay in the current care arrangements. That was a key issue raised by young people, and it would provide them with the support that they need to transition into adult life.

I pay tribute to all foster carers and their families and all adoptive parents and their families for the love, support and care that they provide. I thank them for all that they do to provide a safe home and to support our most vulnerable children and young people. The Committee thanks Adoption UK, the Voice of Young People in Care (VOYPIC) and the Fostering Network for their help in organising those useful sessions. Members commented positively on the quality of the engagement with all the groups, and they hope that the next Committee will continue that engagement in the next mandate as regulations are brought forward and the Bill is implemented. Those who are experts by experience should continue to have their voice included in the conversations.

North/South issues were raised by members during their consideration of the Bill, particularly in relation to kinship care arrangements. Although kinship foster care arrangements are in place under a cross-border protocol, concerns were raised at Committee about the practical challenges stemming from the fact that adoption on a North/South basis is currently treated in the same way as any other inter-country adoption, even though the prospective adopters may be relatives and may live, as we know in this place, on the same road, field or farm as someone who would be a good kinship carer. The Committee sought the views of the Human Rights Commission on the issue. The commission stated in its response that it is currently not clear how the Bill will meet the needs of children for whom adoption is not appropriate but who would benefit from kinship placement across the border. The Human Rights Commission also highlighted that the UK's withdrawal from the European Union had raised additional complexity in the area. The Committee agreed to seek assurances from the Departments of Health and Justice that the loss of the Brussels IIa framework has not adversely impacted how the cross-border placement of children is managed.

The Committee also agreed to ask the Department of Health whether consideration is being given to whether placing children under special guardianship orders (SGOs), overseas or cross-border, may warrant a distinct form of regulatory framework for domestic cases; for example, a bilateral agreement between Britain and Ireland to pre-empt any difficulties that may arise. The Committee looks forward to a response from the Department on that issue.

The Committee recognises the importance of keeping children in existing family structures where possible. In certain circumstances, that may require placements to be made across the border. The Department must ensure that there is sufficient support for cross-border placements, including assessments and the provision of services when applicable. The Committee recommends that the Department undertake a review of cross-border care arrangements, including the consideration of a regulatory framework for cross-border cases.

On the amendments, I will speak first on the Committee's amendment in group 1, which is amendment No 45. It would place a duty on the Department to:

The amendment also allows the Department to make regulations to remove the requirement to report but not before the tenth anniversary of the Act's receiving Royal Assent, as the Minister has flagged. The Committee recognises that the Bill is significant legislation that has been delayed a number of times over the past decade. In order to provide the Assembly, the Committee and stakeholders with an assurance that implementation of the legislation is a priority, the Committee agreed that there should be a requirement on the Department to report on the Bill's implementation. I am grateful to departmental officials for indicating that the Minister is content with the amendment.

The Department's amendments in group 1 are largely to do with tidying up and removing references to the Health and Social Care Board. The Committee agreed that it was content with the Department's amendments in the group.

The Committee welcomes the changes proposed in amendment Nos 43 and 44, which amend the Department's regulation-making powers and change the Assembly's scrutiny of regulations from negative resolution to draft affirmative resolution. The Committee continues to have a concern, however, that, potentially, other regulations under the Bill should also be subject to draft affirmative rather than negative resolution. The Committee is considering tabling amendments at Further Consideration Stage that would bring regulations in clauses 24, 55 and 77 subject under the draft affirmative process. That follows the Committee's consideration of the Examiner of Statutory Rules' report on delegated powers, which highlighted a number of clauses where the Committee should consider whether the negative resolution process was the most appropriate.

Clause 24 enables the Department to make regulations to set out:

and to refuse to allow contact that would otherwise be required by virtue of a contact order under clause 23. Clause 52(1) enables the Department to make regulations applying with modifications or disapplying certain provisions of the Children Order where:

Clause 77(3) provides:

The Committee agrees that those clauses provide for regulations on significant issues and that it would be appropriate for those regulations to go through the draft affirmative procedure. Members will be keen to hear the Minister's views on those clauses.

I am sure that everyone will be glad to hear that I am almost at the end of my remarks. As Chair, I want to thank a few people in relation to the amendments in group 1. I thank the Minister and his officials for their engagement with the Committee. Officials have been very good at providing information to and briefing the Committee on what is a technical and complex Bill; indeed, they provided the Committee with an informal briefing on the adoption process and with further information that the Committee had sought. On behalf of the Committee, I thank officials sincerely for the way in which they conducted their work. It is worth noting that many stakeholders highlighted officials' proactive approach to engagement with the sector on the Bill. I welcome that, because it lends itself to achieving more broadly agreed outcomes, as has been demonstrated here. That was welcome, and I urge the Department to continue that proactive engagement as regulations are brought forward in the coming period.

I also thank Committee members for their work on the Bill. As I said, this is a detailed and complex Bill that was considered during an extremely busy period for the Committee in which six other Bills were being considered. The Committee has come forward with solid, sound and good recommendations that will strengthen the Bill. Before I finish this section of my comments, I record my sincere thanks to the Committee team and the Bill Clerk for supporting members through the scrutiny of the Bill. Every member of the Health Committee recognises the fantastic work that our Committee staff have done throughout our tenure as a Committee, particularly in relation to some of these very detailed Bills. They have provided us with information, support and advice at every step of the way. We recognise the amount of work that goes into that, which is often unseen, and we thank all of them.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Members, as Question Time is due to commence at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the House take its ease until then. This debate will continue immediately after Question Time. I ask Members to note that the debate will resume at 2.45 pm, when the next Member scheduled to speak is Pam Cameron.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 12 and topical question 7 have been withdrawn.

Ms Hargey (The Minister for Communities): I updated the Assembly before the Christmas recess on the preparatory work for the review of the Caravans Act, and I am happy to update the Member on that in order to reiterate the origins of the Act and the Department's involvement in it.

The Caravans Act was introduced in the Assembly as a private Member's Bill. Initially, the Bill was to replicate the protections for residential occupiers on protected sites, as in other jurisdictions. Subsequently, protections were included for caravans in the holiday sector in the form of a seasonal agreement.

In taking forward the review, a cross-departmental working group was established with representatives from the Department for the Economy and the Department for Infrastructure, which are also responsible for elements of the Caravans Act. Although my Department has responsibility for residential caravans and has a mandatory duty to review the provisions relating to that sector, the Act also contains provisions relating to holiday caravans, which is the policy responsibility of the Department for the Economy, with the licensing of holiday sites, as outlined in the Caravans Act 1963, being the responsibility of the Department for Infrastructure. That is why the decision was taken to look at the Act in its entirety.

I acknowledge the concerns that have been raised by not only many MLAs but constituents. To that effect, in reviewing the Act, I have launched a consultation and engagement exercise with key stakeholders. That remains open until 8 March. It will allow all interested stakeholders to engage, and the cross-departmental working group will then assess the findings from that.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for her answer. She will know about the injustice that is felt by some caravan owners in caravan parks right across Northern Ireland due to their having few to no rights, excessive pitch fee rises and threats of eviction looming over them. Will the Minister step up to the plate and ensure that there is a fairer deal for our caravan owners?

Ms Hargey: As I said, the responsibility under the Act for me is with the residential sector, which is people whose caravan is their home. The responsibility for those you are talking about with holiday caravans is with the Economy Minister. I did not want just a review, because I completely understand the impact that is being felt by those who have a holiday caravan. We saw it when we were going through the pandemic. I agreed, in that context, to review the whole Act, but I need Economy and Infrastructure to work with me. They are working with me through the establishment of the working group. We are consulting at the moment, so, if you know anybody who has concerns, I encourage you to ask them to make sure that they respond to the consultation, which has its closing date on 8 March.

Ms Armstrong: Thank you very much, Minister, for saying that you have started a consultation and that people can respond to it up until 8 March. Are you concerned about the staggering replacement caravan costs that are being forced by site owners on people who live in their caravan? Will that be dealt with in the Caravans Act or a future caravan Act?

Ms Hargey: Definitely. We have seen some of the articles in the press about how some people who own caravans have been treated. I know that, through the stakeholder and engagement exercises, officials from all three Departments are engaging with people who have been impacted. It was not set in the original Act, which is why further amendments will have to be made to the legislation.

It is important that the consultation takes its course. I encourage anyone who has not yet responded to do so, to ensure that we get a completely full picture. As I said, the Economy Minister will have responsibility for how that Department takes forward aspects with regard to people who have caravans as holiday destinations. I hope that it can do that in the context of listening to those people who have been impacted over the last period.

Mr Allister: Last week, I was grateful to have the opportunity to lead a delegation of caravan owners to meet the working group, and found that to be a constructive exercise. Can I suggest to the Minister that the easiest and most efficient way to give security of tenure and basic rights to holiday caravan owners is to extend the protections that already exist in Part 1 of the Caravans Act to holiday caravanners as well?

Ms Hargey: That is part of the review. At the moment, I do not have the ability to extend that. That would have to be done by the Economy Minister, who has responsibility for holiday caravan owners. I hope that the review will start to take forward some of those concrete recommendations.

Ms Á Murphy: Can the Minister outline the stakeholders that the cross-departmental working group intends to meet as part of its review?

Ms Hargey: There is a variety of stakeholders, including those who have caravans, those who own caravan parks, those who offer services in and around the management of caravan parks, local councils, Members and elected representatives beyond the Assembly. The consultation is open to a wide range of people. There have been ongoing engagement sessions, as the Member who asked the previous question mentioned. Again, if anyone in the Chamber or outside it has concerns or thoughts and has not already responded to that consultation, I urge them to ensure that they do so before the deadline closes on 8 March.

Mr Durkan: The consultation and ongoing work is welcome. The Minister has, quite rightly, outlined the cross-departmental nature of the issue. While I, therefore, do not expect it to fall fully at the door of the Minister for Communities, does she envisage or accept the need for a cross-border approach, as well as a cross-departmental approach, to afford and ensure protections to caravan owners from the North who have caravans in the South?

Ms Hargey: I have not heard that issue come up yet in the review. Obviously, the legislation pertains to those who have caravans here in the North. If anything comes up as part of the consultation response that refers to any issues that you may have, I am sure that it will be brought up and looked at. However, as you said, this piece of work is being taken forward by all three Departments. We will, collectively, look at the responses and decide how we move forward to address the Act in its entirety and shape it to ensure that it meets the needs of citizens now.

Ms Hargey: That is an important project to both my Department and, indeed, the people of Bangor. It was actually one of the first projects that I visited when I came into the Department as Minister. The Department for Infrastructure's Rivers submitted an objection to Ards and North Down Borough Council on the developer's planning application. In assessing the planning application, the council considered that the concerns that were raised by DFI Rivers, which related to the reservoir flood area, were outweighed by the significant regeneration benefits to an area that has been long neglected and in need of positive intervention.

On that basis, the council set aside the DFI Rivers objection. The Department for Infrastructure is considering the council's granting of the planning permission in the context of the objection that was lodged, and has the power to call in the planning application for a full review. It is, ultimately, the responsibility of the Infrastructure Minister to decide whether the application should be called in. My officials continue to engage with all stakeholders in an effort to progress the development of that transformational scheme.

Mr Chambers: I want to place on record my disappointment with the apparent lack of urgency that has been shown by two Departments on this important matter.

The problem with Clandeboye lake was identified over a year ago, yet it is only in recent weeks that a report has been commissioned on the remedial work that will be required. I have been informed by the Minister for Infrastructure —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Chambers —

Mr Chambers: — that she has no powers —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Chambers —

Mr Chambers: — to compel a private owner to conduct any —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. I have tried to call the Member to order. He is in danger of giving a speech and not asking a question. Can we have a question, please, Mr Chambers?

Mr Chambers: What action will the Minister's Department take to push the planning application along?

Ms Hargey: My officials have been engaging with key stakeholders to progress the project as quickly as possible. Ards and North Down Borough Council is working closely with the reservoir manager to seek completion of the reservoir engineer's inspection report. Indeed, my Department has provided funding to ensure that the report is expedited, and as soon as possible, so that the project might have an impact on the broader regeneration of Bangor.

We have been working very closely to try to get the scheme progressed, but, as the Member will understand, another Minister has a separate set of powers in which I cannot intervene, so I have to wait on the outworking of her decision.

Mr Dunne: I acknowledge the work done by departmental officials over many years. Will the Minister commit to working with her colleague the Infrastructure Minister to get delivery of the project, which has been running on for over 30 years?

Ms Hargey: I have written to my colleague in the Department for Infrastructure to highlight the project's importance to my Department and the wider area and the impact that it would have on those in the council area. We are just waiting on the outcome of the Minister's decision on whether the Department will call in the application.

As I have highlighted, we are continuing to work with the council on any outstanding reports. We have put resource into that to make sure that it is done as quickly as possible, but I cannot overstep my bounds into another Minister's portfolio, so I have to await the results of a call-in procedure, if one is to be enacted.

Mr Muir: Over £10 million of public funds have been spent on the scheme, and there will be £50 million of economic regeneration if approval is given. Will the Minister consider requesting a meeting with the Infrastructure Minister to ensure that the project gets the green light? Bangor has been waiting for far too long.

Ms Hargey: I have communicated with the Infrastructure Minister on the importance of the scheme. As I said, it was one of the first projects that I visited as Minister, and I could see the need for regeneration and investment in the area and the knock-on effect that regeneration would have for local businesses and for housing for the inhabitants of the area. I cannot stray into another Minister's remit, however, particularly in planning circumstances. The Department has to make a decision on whether to call in the application.

As I said, I have put resource into working with the council to make sure that any study that needs to be completed is done as quickly as possible, and I will continue to lend my support and call for the scheme to be done as quickly as possible.

Ms Ferguson: I welcome the development and the hard work undertaken so far around the commitment given to Bangor and to the regeneration of our town centres. Regeneration will make a huge difference, particularly given the pandemic. Will the Minister outline the benefits of this type of regeneration project for town centres?

Ms Hargey: As was stated earlier, over the past 10 years, over £10 million has been invested in the development. The overall development represents £50 million of investment to bring about a massive transformation of the Bangor seafront. It would bring in a hotel, resulting in overnight stays that would have an impact on the local economy. It would also see the construction of 137 new homes, 70,000 square feet of office space, a destination and cinema space, and indoor and outdoor activity space. It would make a huge contribution by transforming the area not only physically but socially and economically. It would act as a catalyst for further investment in transforming Bangor and the surrounding areas.

Ms Hargey: With your permission, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 3 and 4 together.

The subregional stadia programme provides a real opportunity not only to address the needs of soccer but to benefit respective communities with societal, economic and cultural enrichment. You will be aware of the history of the programme, including the public consultation back in 2015 and early 2016, and I share the frustrations expressed by some Members that the programme is yet to be implemented since its original endorsement in 2011. However, as I have stated, with the passage of time from the period when I came into post, there was a need to refresh and re-engage with clubs and organisations on the ground. Officials had carried out a club survey and engaged in strategic discussions with key stakeholders who oversee the game, operate facilities and support the game at all levels. Collaboration has taken place through the advisory working group, which provides expert insight on facility needs for soccer at all levels. That group includes the Irish Football Association (IFA), the NI Football League, Sport NI and the Department. There has also been engagement with councils, which provide pitches across the board for clubs at a local level.

Some notable changes have been identified to date, including a significant increase in participation in grassroots sports and a rapid growth in the female game. Obviously, all the evidence gathered is under consideration. I suppose that it is important to highlight that I will not be able to progress the scheme as it is at the moment, because the agreement was always that I needed to take any proposals to the Executive for approval and for sign-off on the programme and the funding. With no Executive, that cannot be done.

Mr Weir: It is disappointing to hear that. Why would she need sign-off when the money was initially allocated specifically for the programme? It is something that is entirely within the scope of her Department. Why can the announcement not be made and funding be made available during this mandate?

Ms Hargey: The proposal was always to go back to the Executive for final sign-off and for the funding to be committed. That had not been done. It is not my fault that people walked out of the Executive. I had aimed for that to be done before the end of the mandate, but unfortunately, because some chose to walk away, decisions cannot be taken by the Executive.

Mr Robinson: Minister, no ifs or buts, you had plenty of time to release the funding long before the horrific protocol was implemented. You have heard at first hand from Coleraine and Limavady United football officials the absolute need for the long-awaited funding to help transform their grounds —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Robinson, can you get to the question?

Mr Robinson: — for their spectators, players and wider communities. Minister, can you give us a definite date for when the funding will be released?

Ms Hargey: The questionnaires that were filled out by local clubs across the board demonstrate the need. As I said, there is a changed need for grassroots sports and the involvement of women. Unfortunately, I cannot give a date because there is no Executive to sign off and commit to the final budget.

Miss Reilly: Minister, is the reckless decision by the DUP First Minister to walk away from his responsibilities and the inability of the Executive to meet because of that, likely to impact on the subregional stadia programme for soccer? If so, how?

Ms Hargey: I remain fully committed to delivering the programme within the mandate. Obviously, the mandate is still running, but the absence of an Executive will add further delays to the programme.

Mr Lyttle: Association football empowers children and adults of all backgrounds at all levels across Northern Ireland in some of the most chronically underfunded facilities in our community. It is absolutely devastating to hear of this complication. It is 11 years since the process was announced, and there have been three DUP and two Sinn Féin Ministers since then. Will the Minister commit to doing all that she can to find a way to unlock that vital funding for our community in this mandate?

Ms Hargey: I will try to find every way possible, but, if the restriction is that the programme and the remaining budget need sign-off, I have to bring that to the Executive. If there is a way round that, I will certainly do it. Of course, that is also tied into the Budget discussion: if a Budget cannot be signed off for the next financial year, there will be implications for the programme.

Of course, I will continue to find a way. I completely recognise the role that football has at the grassroots. We saw the IFA work with Ulster Rugby and the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) throughout the pandemic. We saw the impact on mental health and well-being when sport was taken away because of the restrictions. I have also seen, through a small capital grants programme, clubs coming forward and looking for additional resources. This would have been a brilliant programme to get out before the end of the mandate, but, unfortunately, with no Executive, we are not able to do that.

Mr McNulty: It is disappointing, Minister, that that funding will not be made available for the subregional stadia programme as a consequence of those who walked away from the Executive. I am encouraged by your commitment to try to resolve that and find a way around it. It is good to hear that.

Minister, have the recommendations, identified as part of your Department's refresh and re-engagement exercise, been presented to the Executive?

Ms Hargey: No. I intended to present that to the Executive. They need to sign off on the new engagement programme and my proposals for how the money will be utilised. I am unable to do that until an Executive is up and running again.

Ms Hargey: Last year, just over 22,000 PIP reviews were processed. Therefore, it is important to allow a maximum period for reviews to be completed to prevent any risk of a person’s existing PIP payment running out. That is essential as the end of a PIP award can impact on other benefits currently in payment, such as carer's allowance and income-related benefits. The review process begins only when the form is returned, and anyone who needs more time to complete the form, including help to fill it in, will be given it if they contact the Department. In addition, last April, I introduced the completion of PIP award reviews in-house where sufficient evidence is available.

All PIP review forms are scrutinised immediately on receipt by the Department to establish if a PIP can be awarded again, either at the same rate as before or at an increased rate, if there has been a change, without the need for an assessment. Currently, close to half of the PIP reviews are determined in-house by the Department, meaning that claimants can be notified straight away of the outcome of the review, and, where appropriate, awards are increased immediately. All processes are continually kept under review.

Mr M Bradley: Thank you for your answer, Minister. The issue is that review forms are being sent out about 10 months in advance of a PIP award coming to an end. The form is completed and returned, but, by the time the person is assessed, their conditions have changed and the form is no longer relevant. What is the Department doing to reduce those times and make the PIP process less stressful for applicants?

Ms Hargey: As I said, the reason we try to seek the information earlier is just the time it takes for the assessment process and to look at any new information or evidence. We want to avoid taking it too close to the end of the assessment period because, if the review is not completed on time or someone does not turn up for an assessment, that could stop the payment, which would have a knock-on effect on other benefits that I listed.

As I said, nearly half of the assessments are now done in-house. I want to continue to increase the number of assessments being done in-house. For some of those with longer-term awards, we are trying to turn those over to ensure that a bigger percentage goes through, and 81% have been given an award of five years or more. Of those who are paid PIP, around 63,000, which is 39%, receive the maximum amount payable.

We continue to keep it under review. It is important that the applicant gets any new or additional information in as soon as possible so that it can be assessed. If we can do that through a desktop exercise in the Department, we hope to do that to speed up the process.

Ms Brogan: Will the Minister provide an update on the extension of payments that protect people from the bedroom tax and other cruel Tory welfare cuts?

Ms Hargey: We have recently passed regulations around extensions. Those are working their way through at the moment, with all claimants being notified as soon as possible.

Mr Blair: Can the Minister give any further details on the plans to bring PIP assessments in-house, including in particular whether she will consider using the Royal College of Occupational Therapists model when considering assessments and applications? That model considers the whole person, including the impact that mental health has on the day-to-day activities of that person.

Ms Hargey: I have already given a policy intent that I want those services to be brought in-house again. I want to make sure that that is done, but, in order to do that, I need to work with the Department of Health. Obviously, we have been looking at the Scottish model and others to see the approach that they take, working through local health trusts. The closer we can align the assessments to health professionals who know the individuals, their injuries and their physical or mental disabilities, the better an assessment that will make. When you look at the appeals, you see that it is the new evidence that is presented at the later stage of the appeals process that overturns the original decision. It is about front-loading all that as much as possible.

I made a case to the Executive for additional funding to do that. Unfortunately, it never made it on to the Executive table to be discussed. I have already communicated with the Health Minister and the Department of Health to see how they can work with us and to look at a date on which we could start to bring those services in-house or, at least, pilot that approach in each health trust. Those discussions are ongoing. Once I have more definitive information or dates, I can provide those to the House.

Mr Durkan: The PIP process causes people a lot of stress, and its faults were laid bare by the ombudsman's report. The Minister spoke about her work with the Minister of Health. It is right that we should look at every way to take the stress out of the situation for people. Has there been any work with the Department of Health around information sharing, given the delays and difficulties that many people have in accessing their medical records for assessments?

Ms Hargey: That is part of the discussion that we have been having. I welcomed the NIPSO report, and we continue to work with the ombudsman on the recommendations that she laid out around making changes. We have already started to bring more of the assessments in-house, and that is part of it. I have already signed off on my policy intent to bring that service in-house again.

Part of the difficulty, as I understand it, is that there is no single database in the health system that holds all of that information. We hit that problem when we looked at food access during the pandemic and tried to get all the information for those who were shielding. Those records are kept by different surgeries, which all use different systems. The Department of Health is looking at an integrated system that will start to bring that all under one roof, but getting to that point will take time. That is why we are working closely with Health. We need to work closely with Health, because it has the professionals who can do the assessments and, importantly, who know the individuals. Those conversations are ongoing.

Ms Hargey: Face-to-face assessments for PIP resumed on 1 July last year. Currently, that is only for those who are unable to take part in a telephone assessment due to their condition; for example, people with hearing or speech impairments, those who do not have a telephone or those who experience technical difficulties with calls. The Department will continue to monitor the policy in that area as COVID-19 restrictions begin to change.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her answer. The Minister will know the inadequacies of a phone conversation when it comes to assessing how an ailment affects a person, and the help and support that they may have with them at assessments is not the same through a phone conversation, even if it is on loudspeaker.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Question?

Mr Frew: Will the Minister do all in her power to get everybody back to face-to-face assessments, and when will that take place?

Ms Hargey: We are keeping that under review with the changes in the restrictions. We know the difficulties in getting the changes through. Hopefully, the Health Minister will make an announcement on that shortly.

Over that period from 1 July, 30 appointments were booked for face-to-face assessments, at which 17 people attended. Nine did not show up, and that could have been for a variety of reasons. If anyone requests a face-to-face meeting, we will consider that.

I want to get to a point when we are offering face-to-face appointments again and not just for a prescriptive group. Many people found a benefit in having telephone assessments. Some do not want to do face-to-face assessments. It is about making sure that we find a variety of offers that suit the needs of the person who is applying and that we can offer whatever method they are most comfortable with.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: A 10-second question; a 10-second answer.

Mr Sheehan: What implication does the DUP's decision to unilaterally walk away from the Executive have for the work of the independent advisory panel on welfare mitigations, and will it prevent the introduction of further measures for hard-pressed families?

Ms Hargey: The mitigations review is ongoing. The aim is for the panel to submit a report to me shortly. I was then to bring recommendations on the outworkings of the panel to the Executive. With no Executive in place, I am unable to do that, which means that looking at any further mitigations cannot be done until a new Executive are in place to identify and agree which additional mitigations should be taken forward.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends the period for listed questions. We move to topical questions to the Minister.

Ms Hargey: Good work has been ongoing with the anti-poverty strategy and, indeed, all the other inclusion strategies. Over a year ago, we appointed an expert panel that published a report, which is on the Department's website. After that, we got into co-design groups. There are a number of organisations and individuals involved in the co-design group for the anti-poverty strategy, which includes looking at children's poverty.

They are working at the moment. I met them, in December, when they were putting forward their proposals and position paper. I met the chair of the group again in recent weeks. A date was set for the middle of March to meet all Ministers around the Executive table to present that. Now, I am looking to see whether we are able to do that without the Executive Office Ministers being in position.

There was always the intent that we would bring the strategy forward before the end of the mandate. There were difficulties because the co-design group needed a bit more time to look through the issues. However, with no Executive, it will be in a new mandate or whenever an Executive can be up and running for all the inclusion strategies to go forward.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Minister. 'New Decade, New Approach' describes the anti-poverty strategy as an Executive one; therefore, you need sign-off. What is the impact without sign-off on the 17% of the population living in relative income poverty, not least the 100,000 children?

Ms Hargey: As you said, it is an Executive-wide policy, so any new schemes or proposals would need the approval of the Executive, as would any additional budget. We know the circumstances. The Finance Minister is seeking legal advice to see whether the Budget can be progressed. If not, we cannot look at a new budget with new and additional programmes of work going into next year.

For any proposals that are coming forward within the anti-poverty strategy, first, they cannot be signed off as policy, and, secondly, we cannot secure or agree the budget in order to progress them. They are on hold until an Executive are up and running. I will do what I can to mitigate in the interim, but some things are just not possible without the Executive.

Ms Hargey: When we were going through those amendments, I raised concerns about the amendment that was proposed and subsequently passed. I said that there would be unintended consequences as a result, so this is, in fact, the outworking of the concerns that I raised as Minister.

Of course, the legislation is passed and the will of the Assembly has spoken, but we are trying to work through those unintended consequences and issues as quickly as possible. Once I have a date for when we can progress them fully, I will write to Members to update them on that.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for the answer. Further to that, will she consider giving compensation to traders who have suffered because of the delay in bringing forward those taproom licences, which, in many cases, are vital to our rural economies and to tourism?

Ms Hargey: I would have to look at legal advice around that. I could not say that now. As Minister, I warned or advised against pushing the issue at this point. Again, I am open to looking at legal advice, and I will come back to the Member.

Ms Hargey: It is good that the mitigations are starting to progress. We passed the regulations to extend the existing mitigations, and they are starting to go through at the moment and have been laid. We are also working through the legislation. We had Consideration Stage last week and discussed the bedroom tax, and I am thankful that we got the support of the full House after an amendment on the bedroom tax and reached the decision not to have an end date in the legislation. The legislation will go to Further Consideration Stage, and the aim is to have all this completed before the end of the mandate. That includes closing the loopholes in the bedroom tax mitigation, which will see protection for hundreds of families who have been impacted on. Indeed, with the bedroom tax itself, over 36,000 households will see the benefit of the mitigation and protection continuing.

Miss Reilly: Go raibh maith agat, a Aire, as an fhreagra sin. Thank you for that answer and for your clear and ongoing commitment to protecting the most vulnerable in our society. Given the uncertainty that now hangs over these institutions, will the Minister agree that compassionate measures such as these stand in complete contrast to the actions of the DUP, which has prioritised its own election concerns over the need to protect workers, families and individuals here?

Ms Hargey: There is a lot of work to be done before the end of this mandate, not just on legislation but on new policies that will be coming forward. We already spoke about the anti-poverty strategy, and there is the LGBTQI strategy, a disability strategy and a gender strategy. Those strategies will include proposals that would have a real impact on many of our citizens out there in our communities. Unfortunately, we have instability and no Executive, and any new policies, decisions or funding going forward cannot be dealt with without that Executive functioning.

Ms Hargey: I do not have a specific update for the Member, but I have worked with DAERA and the Department for Infrastructure on revitalisation funding. On the back of COVID, there is a new £23 million fund for revitalisation, and that is going through councils for rural areas and particularly for populations below 5,000. There is a lot of interest in that capital programme at the moment. I will get the specific details for the Member's area and follow up in writing.

Mr Robinson: Will the Minister commit to have her officials investigate Linenhall Street in Limavady, which is in my constituency, with a view to implementing a much-needed revitalisation scheme to overcome the dilapidated state of that street? Such a scheme would help existing traders and attract new business to the street. I appreciate what you said, Minister, about the funding.

Ms Hargey: Yes, I will have a look at that for the Member and follow up in writing with a formal response.

Ms Hargey: First, I have called for housing to be a key outcome in the Programme for Government. That would mean that one of the Executive's key priorities would be to deliver housing, from its inception through to the home being ready for a tenant to move into. I hope that other parties will support that call, which has been made by the wider housing family as well.

As the Member will know, a consultation has opened on the housing supply strategy, which looks at a whole-system approach, including the infrastructure that is needed in order to build homes. I have set out a plan to build over 100,000 homes over the next 15 years, and, of course, infrastructure is needed to go with that. The Department for Infrastructure, through Budgets over the last year or so, has received an increased budget for infrastructure spend, and, indeed, I, as Minister, have supported that. I have held meetings with the Department for Infrastructure and the Minister, who, I know, has a keen interest in housing as well. Of course, I will continue to work with her and the Executive, if they get up and running again, to ensure that we prioritise housing and, indeed, the infrastructure that is needed.

Mr Beggs: I thank the Minister for her answer. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive proposes to demolish the final block of multistorey flats in Larne. Will the Minister advise why the demolition of those flats was not directly linked to a fresh planning application so that social homes could directly benefit from the reduction in sewerage capacity and that those living in the flats could have the option of continuing to live in the adjacent area?

Ms Hargey: I know that we have communicated previously on those apartments. The Housing Executive has a responsibility to maintain and look after stock. If stock has gone beyond use, cannot be maintained or costs more money to upgrade than to demolish, a business case is developed, and that comes to the Department for approval. There are a number of those sites across the North, and we are working with the Housing Executive on them. Part of it is about trying to align them, where we can, with the social housing development programme. Of course, there are then bigger discussions about infrastructure more broadly and what is needed to deliver housing. We are continuing to look at all of them. If there is a more specific issue, I would be happy to take that up with you afterwards. The proposed demolition has been through a business case. The Housing Executive brought forward its assessment, and the Department supported its recommendations.

Ms Hargey: That scheme came on the back of a report by the culture, arts and heritage recovery task force, which I established in the midst of the pandemic. There was a call from all those sectors for something to be done to stabilise them beyond the pandemic. There was financial investment from the Executive to help sectors that were forced to close throughout the pandemic. We are now focused on revitalising them and making sure that they are sustained over the next period.

The first recommendation in the task force's report was on support for individual artists. Indeed, before Christmas, I opened a scheme so that individual artists could receive direct financial support. The fourth recommendation was for a skills fund to employ people in those sectors, stabilise the sectors and create employment opportunities. I was glad that I was able to bring forward that £10 million fund, which will provide hundreds of jobs in each of the sectors, as well as the community and voluntary sector and sports. That will, for the first time in a long time, see funding opportunities for organisations and three years' funding for staff. Fundamentally, it is about retaining skills in the sectors. People leaving because of burnout is a big concern. We want to retain people in those sectors by providing financial support. The scheme has been widely acknowledged by the sector, and, indeed, it meets one of the commitments in the task force report.

Mr O'Dowd: Thank you, Minister. Another issue that you been working on recently is the Charities Bill. What will be the practical outworkings of the Charities Bill for that sector?

Ms Hargey: A High Court judgement in 2019 left 6,500 charities uncertain about the legal parameters in which they were working.

As part of the Charities Bill, which passed its Final Stage in the Assembly last week, we will, I am glad to say, start to retrospectively fix some of those issues and give peace of mind to the charities. We are continuing to work with charities. At the start of the year, we launched a new COVID recovery fund, which sees more financial resources going back into the sector in order to support it in the time ahead.

Ms Hargey: I met said playwright just before the outbreak of COVID; I went to one of his plays. A huge amount of additional funding has gone into the sector as a result of the COVID moneys that we have received. We have worked with the sector to develop the task force report. The task force was chaired by Rotha Johnston and was made up of individuals and organisations from the sectors. We implemented the first request that the task force made, which, as I said, was for an individual artists' fund to support those working within the sectors and associated freelancers. Payments from that fund will go out shortly.

In January of this year, I launched an additional fund through the Arts Council to stabilise and support organisations. That is on top of the £10 million fund. Working with the Arts Council and Future Screens, there are opportunities for organisations to apply for three years' funding and to employ people in those sectors in order to stabilise them.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister for Communities. I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments while we change the top Table. The next item of business will be the resumption of the Adoption and Children Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): I call Pam Cameron.

Mrs Cameron: At the outset, I wish the Minister, Robin Swann, all the best with his recovery from COVID. I presume that he will be coming back online to watch us through the debate. I thank the Chair of the Committee, Colm Gildernew, for summarising the Committee's scrutiny. That was really useful. As we know, this is a long-awaited Bill, so we are very glad to be at this stage today.

Before I address some of the amendments in this group, and I promise to be brief, I restate my support for the Bill in addressing the very pressing need for a more responsive and child-focused adoption process. In all of our consideration of the Bill, we must remember that at the forefront is a child, a child who, in these situations, can often be vulnerable. We must also prioritise the needs — financial, emotional and otherwise — of prospective parents. Adopting a child is a huge step for child and parent, and it can be such a blessing for both. It is our job to ensure that the law makes that transition as safe and robust as possible for both, and that it is not unnecessarily intrusive, delayed or off-putting.

When I look at this group of amendments, I see, in the round, improvements to the Bill. We will support the amendments in this group to improve the Bill. Amendment Nos 1 to 42, 48 to 50, 52 to 57 and 60 are consequential amendments as a result of abolishing the Health and Social Care Board. That being the case, it is important that those be made to the Bill. We have no objections to those amendments. That reconfiguration of services is vitally important, and we, as a party, very much wish to see further reform. The only point that I will make on that is to stress the need to ensure that any future reconfiguration of how services are commissioned maintains high levels of accountability and input in adoption services. A silo mentality will not produce the best outcomes. I trust that that will become the established practice when the Bill becomes law.

Amendment Nos 43 and 44 stipulate that regulations on the suitability of prospective adopters and access to adoption registers will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. We welcome that extra level of scrutiny. It improves the Bill. Those issues are central to ensuring that the adoption process is fair, safe and robust. I know that Members across the House want the Bill to be at its best in those areas. On searching adoption registers, it will be important to consider privacy issues. I would welcome the Minister's views on how that can be guaranteed so as to be as robust as possible.

Amendment No 45 directs that the Department must report on implementation of the provisions of the Act within three years and once every five years thereafter. That is a welcome proposal, although it would be useful to understand the reason for the different reporting periods of five years for the Adoption Act and three years for the Children Order. If that could be clarified to explain the disparity, it would be greatly appreciated. Amendment No 51 ensures that legal aid will not be funded for the provision of advice, assistance or representation to any children's court guardian. That maintains parity with children's representation under the Children Order.

Finally in this group, amendment Nos 58 and 59 repeal outdated legislation from the Hague convention, an international adoption convention that is no longer in operation. We have no objection to that repeal. It is important that the position of those adopted under the former provisions retain their rights as part of any new framework.

I thank the Minister and his officials and, indeed, the Committee Clerk and team for the huge amount of work that has been done on the Bill. It is important that we also thank all of those who gave evidence to the Committee, whether in writing or verbally. I thank them for their very important input to such a really important Bill. The amendments would improve the Bill, and, as such, my party colleagues and I commend them to the House

Mr McGrath: Likewise, I begin by offering my best wishes to the Minister. You may look fine and well on a TV screen, but I appreciate you were catching for breath a few times in your contribution. I wish you all the best in your recovery from COVID.

This is an important debate, and the Adoption and Children Bill is an important piece of draft legislation. What we are discussing is another example of what this place can stand for when we achieve and work collectively and look forward progressively. I say that because it is 20 years since our adoption legislation was last amended. Society has progressed and operational systems have changed.

What has remained constant, however, is the fact that there are still children who require adoptive families, stability and consistency in their lives. They require a place that they can call home. We need to look forward and ensure that our adoption system is fit for 2022 and not stuck in 1995.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this group of amendments. The Health Committee spent considerable time and effort on its deliberations on and scrutiny of the Bill and the amendments that we are discussing today. I thank the Chair and the Deputy Chair of the Committee for guiding us through that process. I also thank the Committee staff team, who liaised with the Department to prepare, at very short notice, detailed papers providing us with information on what is a large and, in places, complex Bill.

For the most part, the Committee was able to agree on the amendments and work with the Department to achieve the best possible Bill for children. That cross-party support and scrutiny is important. We also engaged with and listened to a variety of groups from the sector. We heard evidence from the Children's Commissioner, the Department, Barnardo's, Family Routes and many more. Those organisations told us that our systems need to be less bureaucratic and that the needs of the child should be to the fore. That is what the Bill seeks to achieve.

The amendments in the first group are particularly relevant to that outcome. For the most part, amendment Nos 1, 2, 22 to 46 and 48 to 60 are technical amendments that reflect our recent vote to dissolve the Health and Social Care Board, to strip down the levels of bureaucracy and to make the system much more accessible. If we can help our adoption system become less bureaucratic and more efficient, that will help the children and young people who are still waiting on a permanent home.

Last year, we saw 57 children across the North adopted from care. They now have a home. Some 47% of them, however, had to spend between three and five years in care before they could be adopted. That is three to five years of instability, inconsistency and change. Although we acknowledge the sterling work that is done by carers and foster carers, and although those children are undoubtedly resilient, we must do more to cut down those times as much as possible. Hopefully, that is what the amendments will do: streamline the system. In an effort to make our adoption system more transparent and more efficient, we in the SDLP are happy to support the amendments in group 1.

Mr Chambers: I join other Members in wishing the Minister a speedy and full recovery. I am confident that double vaccination and the booster will help him achieve that outcome.

I am glad that the Bill has reached this stage. The legislation, which is long overdue, represents the largest overhaul of adoption legislation in almost 35 years. As the Minister said, it has been long awaited by all who are involved in the adoption process. Today marks one step closer to crossing the finish line. The Bill has faced many challenges, not least passing through the Executive last summer and, in recent weeks, the brief uncertainty over whether the Assembly would still be in place to allow it to continue its passage. Fortunately, however, common sense has prevailed.

Given the breadth of the Bill, I am pleased that we have been able to reach this stage with a strong degree of political consensus. Although there are quite a number of amendments in the group, many largely relate to the abolition of the Health and Social Care Board, while others, such as amendment Nos 43 and 44, relate to regulation-making powers.

I welcome the Minister's support for the Committee's amendment No 45, which concerns a review of the implementation of the Bill. It is important, given the Bill's size and importance, that appropriate reviews and reporting mechanisms be put in place.

Finally, as was touched on earlier, we face a major shortfall in legal provision for the preservation of records from mother-and-baby institutions. It is important that the House keep all options open on that vital issue.

Mrs Erskine: I, too, wish the Minister well as he has to endure COVID. I wish the Swann household well in its isolation.

Everybody has said it so far today, but it cannot be overestimated how overdue this piece of legislation is, and I welcome its progress to date.

The challenge and the need for the legislation is clear, as over recent years there has been a decline in the number of adopters. As the Chair outlined, the range of information that was given in evidence to the Health Committee by adopters and foster carers, as well as organisations and agencies, has detailed at times why that may be the case. It is important that we change the narrative around adoption and fostering. It is sometimes seen as a very difficult path, yet it is so enriching, as, by becoming an adoptive or fostering family, you are giving our children and young people opportunity and hope. The overriding aim of the Bill is to place the child's interests at the heart of every stage of the adoption process. Of course, that is something that all parties can and should unite around.

There are certain amendments in the first group that I would like to deal with in particular. It is important to stress that many of the provisions in the Bill relate to enabling powers and future scrutiny of the regulations that are drafted. On that basis, they will be critical to monitoring the impact of the legislation.

In considering amendment Nos 1 to 42, amendment Nos 48 to 50, amendment Nos 52 to 57 and amendment No 60, the need to ensure that any future reconfiguration of how services are commissioned maintains the high levels of accountability and input in relation to adoption services must be stressed.

Amendment No 45 directs that the Department must report on the implementation of provisions of the Act within three years and once every five years afterwards. That is a welcome proposal that will ensure robust scrutiny, although it would have been useful to understand the reason for the different reporting periods for the Bill — five years — and the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 — three years — to ensure a level playing field, so to speak, for the children they impact on.

My colleague Pam Cameron dealt with the amendments in the group in her contribution, which is why I am keeping my comments brief. Suffice to say, I support the amendments.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): I call the Minister of Health to make his winding-up speech on the first group of amendments. Like everyone else here, Minister, I wish you all the very best for a full and speedy recovery.

Mr Swann: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their good wishes. As Mr Chambers said, the fact that I am able to be here today and take this Consideration Stage is testament to the power of the vaccine and the booster doses.

I thank Members for their contributions to the debate on the first group of amendments, which has focused mostly on the technical and consequential issues. In response to Mr Allister's earlier point of order — I am not sure whether he is in the Chamber — I can assure him that I would rather be in the Chamber in person. If any Member needs clarity on any point that I am unable to provide today, I will follow up with them directly in writing following today's debate.

A number of Members referenced the long overdue need for this update of the legislation. That is why I welcome that we are where we are today. It is worth noting that the last Health Minister to try to get legislation of this nature to this stage was my party colleague, Michael McGimpsey.

I acknowledge a number of recommendations that were made by members of the Health Committee in its report that, whilst falling outside the direct purview of the Bill, are nonetheless relevant to my Department's broader objective of providing effective support to looked-after children, children in need and children who leave care. I can assure Members that I have noted the matters that have been raised and that my Department will give due consideration to each of the recommendations that were made in the Committee's report.

As I indicated, I have tabled amendments to four clauses that the Examiner of Statutory Rules highlighted and the Chair raised. The regulations to be made under the remaining clauses — 24, 52 and 77 — are mainly procedural in nature and, on that basis, should remain subject to the negative resolution procedure. However, I am content to work with the Committee on what is tabled at Further Consideration Stage.

In clause 24, "Contact: supplementary", while the regulations to be made relate to refusing contact, they do not specify the grounds on which contact may be refused. Rather, it is intended that they would specify who must be informed when contact is refused, and this would include the child, the prospective adopter and any person for whom contact is made possible by way of a court order. I am not sure who else would need to be considered.

It is also intended that regulations would specify what needs to take place in advance of the decision to refuse contact. That is intended to include the agreement of the child, prior to consultation with the prospective adopter, and a written, rather than a verbal, agreement. It is important to note that the reason on which such decisions should be based is set out in the Bill, that is clause 24(2), which provides that an agency may refuse to allow contact if:

Therefore, on the basis that these regulations are intended to specify the process around a decision to refuse contact rather than the grounds on which contact might be refused, I remain of the view that affirmative resolution procedure is not necessary.

Clause 52 is the "Modification of Children Order in relation to adoption". That clause enables the Department to make regulations applying, with modifications, or disapplying certain provisions of the Children Order in relation to a child whom an adoption authority has placed or is authorised to place for adoption. So, once an adoption agency has been authorised to place a child for adoption, that child becomes looked after, and the Children Order should, as a result, apply. However, some adjustments are required that will take account of the fact that requirements under the Bill also now apply. It is not appropriate to have a continuing duty to promote contact under the Children Order, as contact will be agreed as part of the placement for adoption arrangements under the Bill. Indeed, that could cause issue, if the court has already imposed certain restrictions on contact as part of the placement arrangements. Likewise, the requirements under the Children Order to seek the views of the parent no longer need to apply. That does not mean that their views will not be sought, because clause 3 of the Bill requires the adoption agency, in coming to any decision about a child's adoption, to have regard to the wishes and feelings of the children's relatives. Finally, any requirements under the Children Order for the child's parent to make contributions to the child's maintenance will also be disapplied, which, in the circumstances, is right and proper.

It is important to highlight the fact that the regulations to be made under clause 52 will not amend any provision in the Children Order, and such provision will just not apply in this specific set of circumstances. I consider that this is a technical necessity to avoid the duplication of duties and any confusion that might arise as a consequence. As a result, I do not consider the affirmative resolution procedure is required or necessary, and we should keep our approach consistent with that taken in England and Wales in relation to similar regulations.

Clause 77 is the adopted children register "Searches and copies". The clause creates a power to prescribe in regulations the information that must be provided to the Registrar General on seeking to obtain certified a copy of an entry in the adopted children register relating to an adopted person who has not attained the age of 18 years. These regulations will be made by the Department of Finance. It is anticipated that the information required to be provided will be the full name and date of birth of the adopted person, the full names of the adoptive parents and the minimum information required to support identification. The details are the same as those currently prescribed in regulations that are required when an adopted person over the age of 18 applies for their birth certificate and when an adopted person under the age of 18 is applying for information about whether they and the person they intend to marry may be within the prohibited degrees of relationship.

The regulations prescribing this were made by way of negative resolution procedure. I do not consider that it would be appropriate for regulation that is to be made under clause 77 of the Bill, which may actually be an amendment to the existing 95 regulations, to be subject to a different procedure from those original regulations. As the matters will be prescribed already, as applied to existing applications to the General Register Office (GRO), I consider that the affirmative resolution procedure will not be necessary. I am, however, content to explore that with the Committee between now and Further Consideration Stage.

With regard to cross-border placements and care, under both current law and the Bill, adoptive parents and children in Northern Ireland are afforded the same access to assessment for adoption support, regardless of whether the adoption took place in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland or overseas. In particular, clause 2(8) makes clear that the adoption service is comprehensive and is intended to include domestic and inter-country adoption. All adoptions between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, whether or not they involve relatives, are treated in legal terms as inter-country adoption. A North/South protocol for handling inter-jurisdictional child cases, including kinship placements, has been in place since 2011. That protocol was recently revised, and an updated version was agreed by the North/South Ministerial Council child protection officials group and came into effect on 1 August 2021. It will be subject to annual review by relevant authorities in both jurisdictions. It provides a framework to assist relevant social work authorities in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to work together in relation to children and/or families known to social services who move or are placed across the border. I am happy to supply that information to the Committee. We are exploring whether, under the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption and/or domestic legislation, there is scope to establish a special arrangement between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, with the aim of streamlining or harmonising current practice and/or procedure relating to the adoption of children between the two jurisdictions.

Officials will give careful further consideration to SGOs and their application on a North/South basis. On EU exit, which the Chair raised, my Department's legal advisers have confirmed that the 1996 Hague Convention provides the necessary cover in place of the Brussels 11A regulation, which no longer applies.

On social work vacancies and challenges, which the Committee Chair also mentioned, the Department has recently completed a review of the social work workforce; it is with the Department of Health programme board for consideration and approval. The review report includes projections for the number of social workers needed to meet current and future service demands. Those projections include the number of additional social workers who will be required on the basis of demographics and analysis of current and future needs. There is also a significant body of work that needs to be implemented on commissioning, recruitment, retention and development of our workforce. An implementation board is being established to oversee the implementation of the review's recommendations, which will address those workforce issues, including vacancies, and build a strong social work workforce. A collaborative regional approach to recruitment of band 5 and band 6 social workers in health and social care trusts commenced last year. Whilst it needs to be formally evaluated, there is general consensus among all trusts that, on the whole, it was a worthwhile approach to take.

My Department also intends to develop legislation on safe staffing levels that will apply to all professional groups, including social workers. The Northern Ireland Social Care Council (NISCC) has built an excellent resource on its website to encourage and guide people through the application process to become a social worker. As a result of that activity and investment over the past three years, applications to the degree programmes have increased significantly. In recognition of increased demand for social workers and as a commitment to providing more career progression opportunities for social care workers, my Department has invested initially in 15 Open University undergraduate social work places, which commenced in the last financial year.

The review of children's services will also inform actions that will build the capacity of children and family social services.

It is clear just how many important issues this Bill touches on and how important it is that we get it right. What we are talking about today will impact on the lives of some of the most vulnerable children, on the arrangements for their future care and on the ability of caregivers to provide that care. We should not forget about that as we debate and take decisions on these amendments and amendments in the subsequent groups. That brings me to the end of my concluding remarks on the group 1 amendments.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): We move to the group 2 amendments. I remind Members that all contributors should address the amendments that have been selected for debate and that Members had the opportunity to debate the general principles of the Bill during the previous stage.

We now come to the second group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 3, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 4 to 13 and amendment No 47. In this group, amendment Nos 7, 8 and 10 are consequential to amendment No 6, and amendment No 13 is consequential to amendment No 11.

Glaoim ar Chathaoirleach an Choiste Sláinte, Colm Gildernew, leasú uimhir a trí a mholadh agus na leasuithe eile sa ghrúpa a thabhairt faoinár mbráid. I call the Chair of the Committee for Health, Mr Colm Gildernew, to move amendment No 3 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I beg to move amendment No 3:

Mr Gildernew: I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on this group of amendments. The Committee has proposed two of the amendments in this grouping: amendment Nos 3 and 12. I will outline the reasoning behind the Committee's amendments and comment generally on the Department's amendments.

Clause 5 confers a new right whereby an adoption agency must carry out an assessment of needs for adoption support services. The Committee was advised that the assessment will provide a means of facilitating the provision of a planned support package. There is universal support for that measure, and the Committee welcomes the duty to provide an assessment of needs. However, many stakeholders raised concerns about the fact that the same right to an assessment of needs was not provided for special guardians in clause 119. At a Committee meeting on 13 January, departmental officials agreed that the Bill as drafted does not provide a duty to conduct an assessment of needs for special guardian support services. The officials advised that the Minister would table an amendment to the Bill to place a duty to provide an assessment of needs, if requested. The Committee is therefore content to support amendment No 11, tabled by the Minister, which provides for an assessment of needs for special guardianship support services and will provide a consistent approach to undertaking assessments.

The key concern about the Bill follows on from the duty to provide an assessment of needs. Committee members and stakeholders welcomed the creation of a provision for an assessment but had concerns that there is no duty on an authority to provide for the needs that are identified in that assessment. The concerns were that, with no duty to provide the services identified, there would be a significant impact on children, young people and families in waiting for what has been identified as a need. The Committee amendment, amendment No 3, requires there to be provision of services for those who have had an assessment undertaken. The amendment outlines who the applicable persons are in that case.

Amendment No 12, which is also from the Committee, outlines that, for special guardianship arrangements, the Committee agreed with stakeholders that there needed to be an assurance of provision of services as, without that assurance, some people may not come forward for assessment because they believe that they will only be placed on a lengthy waiting list and that, essentially, it would be reduced to a tick-box exercise. The Department has rightly identified that children who have been in care have needs that may present at different times in their life and that there should be an assessment of needs when requested. However, if the Department and the Executive want to tackle some of the inequalities that children in care or children who have previously been in care experience, it is no good just to assess; actions and services must be provided following the assessment. We cannot create another waiting list that puts people off requesting an assessment or that is not able to provide services in a timely manner following the assessment.

The Bill has identified implementation costs of approximately £13·8 million in year 1 and recurring costs of over £12 million in the following years. It would be good if the Minister clarified how much of that funding will be specifically for the provision of services following assessment and if he provided assurances that services will be provided in a timely manner following any assessment.

I take this opportunity to highlight some of the good work that is being undertaken in providing support services for children, young people and their families. I encourage the Minister and the Department to look at some of the programmes that are being delivered in the sector by organisations such as Adoption UK, the Fostering Network and the Voice of Young People in Care (VOYPIC), and to consider whether some of those programmes could be expanded to provide additional support for children and young people.

The Minister will provide further information on the purpose of the other departmental amendments, but the Committee agreed that it was content to support them. The Committee agreed to seek clarification from the Department that the amendments to clause 102, which are amendment Nos 4 to 10, are compliant with data protection and public records legislation. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that they are.

Mrs Cameron: As I said in my comments earlier on the group 1 amendments, the overriding aim of the Bill is to place the child's interests at the heart of every stage of the adoption process. All parties should be able to unite around that. As we examine the amendments today, I know that each party will be seeking to strengthen the Bill as much as possible.

The Democratic Unionist Party supports a range of proposals that are outlined in the Bill, including provision for time limits on court proceedings; the right to an assessment for adoption or special guardianship support services; the presumption that contact can be refused if such contact is not consistent with the child's safeguarding or well-being; and an independent review mechanism against adoption panel determinations. We believe that many other aspects of the Bill certainly make it a very positive step forward in fulfilling its overriding aim: to do better for children in the adoption process.

We see much merit in what is proposed in the amendments in group 2. We believe that, in the main, they will add to and strengthen this key legislation. Amendment No 3 from the Committee stipulates specific categories of people for whom trusts are required to provide an assessment in relation to adoption services. I pay tribute to the Committee's work on the Bill. I also place on record my thanks to the Department for its level of engagement. I acknowledge that the Department would prefer that this be prescribed in regulations, but we believe that there is merit in making the legislation as detailed as possible. We believe that, by doing so, it provides certainty for those involved or those who may be involved in the adoption process. That can be only positive.

Amendment Nos 4 to 8 strengthen the rights of those who were adopted prior to the commencement of the Act, including in accessing birth and contact information.

They also bring legislation that relates to disclosure of information for pre-commencement adoptions under one piece of legislation. That will help to address the concerns of victims and survivors of mother-and-baby institutions about the wording of separate legislation that is over 30 years' old. We owe it to victims and survivors to provide for that information being accessible to help them as they continue to live with the pain and suffering that they have had inflicted upon them.

Amendment No 9 seems entirely sensible and, indeed, ethical. It ensures that an adopted person will not have to pay the fee for any information that they receive. It is a worthy amendment, and we support its inclusion in the Bill.

Amendment Nos 11, 12 and 13 place a duty on authorities to conduct an assessment of the needs for special guardianship support services in respect of prospective as well as current parties to a special guardianship order (SGO). Those are welcome additions. Amendment No 12 provides that the needs that are identified by the assessment have to be provided.

Finally, amendment No 47 removes the requirement for somebody who was adopted prior to 1987 to undergo counselling before accessing birth information. While that deals with a potential inequality in access to that information, it is important that we also consider any unintended consequences of a person's not receiving appropriate counselling with regard to trauma or adverse experiences. We cannot deny that, for many, it can be a difficult time and process. We always want to ensure that a blanket of support services is available, encouraged and appropriate to meet the need.

Mr McGrath: In addressing the second group of amendments, I want to hone in on the importance of an adoption system that meets the needs of children and young people. The amendments being discussed are important measures to tighten up the structures and provide the clarity that was previously missing from the Bill.

The other amendments in the grouping are to clause 102, which relates to access to the information involved in pre-commencement adoptions. The amendments aim to address issues that were identified by victims and survivors during the work of the truth recovery design panel. I cannot stress enough the importance of these amendments and the work that has been carried out by that panel. Its work is concerned with events of the past, albeit that, for many, it was the all-too-recent past. The Bill, which we are working to strengthen, is concerned with children's futures. If we want children to have the best possible future, whether they are adopted, in foster care or at home with their biological families, that means ensuring that they have the best start in life. We must listen to the voices of those who were failed in our collective past through state, Church or voluntary institutions. The lessons that they have to teach us are of the utmost importance.

The report that was published by the truth recovery design panel makes for important reading. Most importantly, it will effect real and lasting change here so that never again will a generation of children have to tell us how they were failed while in the care of the state. It is also important to note that the amendments in the grouping, in an effort to meet the diverse needs of children and young people, actually empower them. For instance, amendment No 11 includes a child in the list of those who can request an assessment of need for special guardianship, and it then defines a "relevant child".

Amendment No 47 removes the requirement for those who were adopted before December 1987 to attend an interview with a counsellor before information on their birth records is provided to them. These amendments will give those who have been through the adoption system a sense of autonomy, and they will feel that they are part of a decision-making process that affected their past and will also affect their future. Therefore, in an effort to strengthen the adoption system and ensure that it meets the needs of the children and young people of today through learning from those lessons of the past, the SDLP is happy to support the amendments in group 2.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I, too, want to send my best wishes to the Minister. Tabhair aire duit féin, a Aire, agus do do theaghlach. I send my best wishes to you and your family. It is a worrying time. I, too, remember the legislation in 2010. Indeed, Michelle O'Neill, Sue Ramsey and I were on the Health Committee. You should talk to Michael McGimpsey about that some time. It is good that it has eventually come to the Assembly, albeit there have been many setbacks.

Every member of our Health Committee has come to the legislation with a good heart, and they all want to make sure that the whole experience of adoption is a positive one, as far as it can be. We have only to look at the history of the Magdalene laundries and the lack of redress, which Colm has just outlined, to know what we do not want to do. We want to ensure that citizens get a right to access their information. I will not go into the amendment, and I will not question why it was outside the scope of the Bill, but we need to look at other ways to strengthen the information.

Articles 8 and 13 of the ECHR are engaged in that, for example, a person has a right to a "private and family life". That includes their records. Article 13 states that a person has a "Right to an effective remedy". So, if our ability to strengthen the Bill to give people access to information does not proceed in the way that we all hope, we need to look at other ways to ensure that, at the very least, we do not contradict those articles. We are all trying to strengthen the legislation for people here and now, in the current situation, and we need to be seen to try to correct all the wrongs that happened previously.

In group 2, we are looking at supporting access to information. Information on birth certificates, dates of birth and birth parents were tampered with and disposed of on occasions, and people who are in their 70s and 80s and even younger are still trying to find out who their birth parents were. The fact that, as a jurisdiction, we now have responsibility for records, it is completely untenable that anyone, regardless of their position, would flout the Data Protection Act and the Public Records Act 1923; and I declare an interest as a former keeper of the records when I was in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) and DFC. While we do not have a human rights Act or an equality Act — I have no doubt that we will discuss that later in the debate on the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Bill of Rights — we have statutory obligations to ensure that people get access to that information.

We talk about support services and access to information, particularly under group 2, and the Minister and others raised contact. Paula and I met the youngsters from the Voice of Young People in Care (VOYPIC) as part of the engagement of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Bill of Rights, and one of the things that really threw them, even before the pandemic, was that, when contact could not happen, the information that they got was very intermittent.

I raised that before, and, thankfully, one of the Minister's officials got in contact with me, so hopefully that concern has been cleared up. The contact setting needs to be age appropriate, and the information on why the contact could not occur should be age appropriate. Above all else, youngsters who have been going through health and social care since birth and whose corporate parents are the state have a right to know. We need to look after them a lot better than we have been doing, especially with regard to getting access to information. It is disappointing that the amendment cannot be made, but I look forward to seeing what alternatives we can bring forward. The Minister of Finance, under the Registrar General, will have responsibility under data protection to ensure that people get access to information.

I am pleased that clause 62 discusses counselling, because pre-'87, people were not compelled to get counselling. Compellability was raised by witnesses during evidence sessions. The support around people who are trying to get access to their information is much more specific now than ever before.

I welcome that, but we have a lot to do.

Between now and Further Consideration Stage, we need to look at what can be done within the scope of the Bill on the disclosure or protection of information about adults and the documentation that has to be kept. It is an opportunity that is not to be missed. The Bill and, indeed, others that will come forward will get passage, hopefully in this mandate.

All Committee members were conscious of the number of people who have been through the adoption process. My colleague, Linda Dillon, tried to table an amendment on the matter, and she asked me to raise it on her behalf. I am sure that other political parties have heard it from Survivors and Victims of Institutional Abuse (SAVIA) and other groups. It is really important that there is as much openness, transparency and accessibility as possible. The groups have asked for that. It is the least that we can do for those who have been through the system and are still traumatised. Given how bad and traumatic it is to be put into care and go through adoption, we must make it as easy as possible for people to get the right support and access to information.

Finally, I thank the Minister's officials, all the Committee staff, the Bill Office team and the Engagement team. The Committee met 11 organisations and received written evidence from 16 organisations that were broadly in support of the provisions of the Bill. It is a big Bill; it is long awaited. I hope that, between now and Further Consideration Stage, we can tidy up some of the elements on access to information. None of us wants that matter to be left with any ambiguity.

Mr Swann: I have listened with interest to Members' contributions on the amendments to clauses 5 and 119, which I consider to be at the heart of what the Bill seeks to achieve. As Carál Ní Chuilín summed it up, it is about ensuring that children who leave care through adoption or special guardianship receive the right support for as long as they need it, to enable them to live a happy and fulfilling life despite what will often have been a traumatic beginning.

I will first address amendment Nos 11 and 13, which were tabled in my name, and amendment Nos 3 and 10, which were tabled on behalf of the Committee. I will then speak on amendment Nos 4 to 10, which relate to the disclosure of adoption information.

Amendment Nos 11 and 13 would amend clause 119 to address a concern raised by the Committee and some stakeholders that special guardianship support arrangements should be placed on an equal footing with the provision for adoption. I listened to the views of stakeholders and Committee members and responded by tabling the amendments. It is to ensure consistency between the provision of assessments for special guardianship support needs and the equivalent adoption provision. As a result, the current or prospective special guardians, the relevant children and their parents will be automatically entitled to receive an assessment of their support needs, if they so wish, at any time after a special guardianship order has been applied for. While the order is in place, the provision will be there.

Amendment No 11 amends clause 119 to insert the provision into the new article 14F that will require an authority to provide an assessment of need for special guardianship support services, if requested by or on behalf of children for whom a special guardianship order has been applied for or is in force; that is by current or prospective special guardians and parents of such children.

My Department will also have the power to make regulations to prescribe additional categories of persons for whom an assessment must be undertaken on request, if required. Amendment No 13 is a consequential amendment to reflect that power. As part of the implementation, my Department will capture and monitor the nature and range of special guardianship support needs to determine whether any such categories should be prescribed. It is those amendments that are consistent with the approach that my Department has taken to clause 5, which requires an adoption authority to provide the assessment of adoption support needs on request. That applies to certain categories of people who are included in the Bill and to any other categories of people who may be prescribed in regulations. Most importantly, for children, their carers and parents, the amended provision will help ensure that needs will be identified at a sufficiently early stage, thereby reducing the potential for the development of longer-term, more acute issues in special guardianship arrangements, including the risk of a breakdown. I am pleased that amendment Nos 11 and 13 address the concerns raised about clause 119 to the satisfaction of the Committee, as is noted in its report, and I commend them to the House.

I will now turn to amendment Nos 3 and 12, which were tabled on behalf of the Health Committee. Amendment No 3 relates to clause 5, which deals with adoption support services. Amendment No 12, under clause 119, will insert proposed new article 14F into the Children Order and deals with special guardianship support services. As the Chair mentioned in his opening remarks, those amendments will place a duty on authorities to provide adoption and special guardianship support services that have been assessed as being needed. Clauses 5 and 119 as drafted provide a power for the Department to specify in regulations certain categories of people to whom the trust must provide any support that has been assessed as being needed. As part of the implementation, the Department had intended to capture and monitor the nature and range of support needs for both adoption and special guardianship. Doing that will determine any categories of persons for whom support services, having been assessed as being needed, must be provided. The Department's reason for providing the power to specify the requirements in regulations was to give trusts some initial flexibility to decide in all cases whether to provide services that have been assessed as being needed, thus enabling them to target valuable resources at where they are most needed. That is the principle under which most health and social care services are provided.

I fully understand the motivation behind the Committee's amendments, however. I appreciate that there is a desire to include an unequivocal guarantee in the Bill so that those most impacted on by adoption and special guardianship can receive any service that is assessed as being needed. On reviewing the clauses, following the Committee's report, I am therefore content to support the Committee's amendment Nos 3 and 12, subject to any inconsistency between the wording of the Committee's amendment No 12 and amendment No 11, which was tabled in my name, needing to be addressed. The Committee's amendment No 12 seeks to ensure:

will receive any support services assessed as being needed, whereas my amendment No 11 seeks to extend that to an assessment of a person's support needs on request to a prospective special guardian. Although the wording of the two amendments appears to be very similar, there is an important difference: a "prospective special guardian" is defined in my amendment as someone who has given notice of their intention to apply for a special guardianship order or:

By contrast, the term used in the Committee's amendment, which is:

could be considerably broader in scope and risks creating ambiguity around who is eligible for support. I consider it important to ensure consistency between the two related provisions, given their obvious interdependency.

Therefore, if amendment No 12 is agreed, I intend to work with the members of the Health Committee to table an amendment to address that issue at Further Consideration Stage.

That concludes my remarks on the amendments relating to adoption and special guardianship support services. I am confident that the amendments tabled today will result in the better life outcomes that children who leave care through adoption or a special guardianship arrangement so richly deserve.

I will now speak to amendment Nos 4 to 10, which are tabled in my name. I thank Members for their contributions on what is a complex and sensitive issue. The amendments will amend clause 102, which makes provision for the disclosure of information about adoptions that have taken place prior to the commencement of the new arrangements in clauses 55 to 64. They are referred to as "Pre-commencement adoptions" in the Bill.

Adoption is not a one-off event. It is an evolving, lifelong process for everyone involved: adopted adults and birth and adoptive relatives. It is clear that access to information about adoption is a key issue for adopted adults and their adoptive and birth relatives. In relation to information, the Bill distinguishes between adoptions that took place before the Bill commences and those that take place after that. That is necessary, because we cannot retrospectively impose requirements on how information is kept. However, we can ensure that the process of seeking and providing information is as seamless and supportive as possible and meets the needs of individuals. People will have different information needs and will want to work to their own timetables.

I emphasise that the Bill has been drafted in such a way that, as far as possible, all adopted adults should be able to access any information that is relevant to their birth and early life, subject to the impact on other parties being fully considered. That was a fundamental consideration during the development of the parts of the Bill that deal with access to adoption information, and it will remain so as the regulations that are to be made under the Bill are developed.

Access to information was one of the key themes that emerged from the work of the truth recovery design panel that was appointed to work with victims and survivors of mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses in Northern Ireland. On a number of occasions, departmental officials met a group of victims and survivors of mother-and-baby institutions to discuss in particular the provisions in the Bill that relate to the disclosure of information. Many of the amendments in the group have come about as a result of points taken on board by my Department during those valuable discussions.

Amendment Nos 4 and 5 will allow regulations to be made that enable an adopted person's birth parent to benefit from a broader range of intermediary services than that currently provided for under the Bill. Those amendments will allow for regulations that will enable the birth parents of an adopted person to receive assistance in obtaining information from an adoption agency about the adoption. That is in addition to the assistance with contact that is already provided for. It is important to distinguish between those two types of intermediary assistance, because some birth parents may wish only to receive information about an adopted adult in the first instance and may not be ready to decide whether to seek to establish contact. The amendments will provide them with the option of receiving either type of assistance or both.

Amendment No 6 will enable the Department to include new provisions about the disclosure of information for pre-commencement adoptions in regulations to be made under clause 102. That will allow all provisions on that important and sensitive matter to be covered in one new set of regulations, rather than continuing to rely on the Adoption Agencies Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1989, which are now more than 30 years old. It will also enable the Department, in consultation with victims and survivors of mother-and-baby institutions in particular, to agree more acceptable wording than that contained in the 1989 regulations, which some have expressed concerns about.

Amendment Nos 7, 8 and 10 make technical amendments to clause 102. They are required as a consequence of the insertion of the new subsection 2A by amendment No 6.

Amendment No 9 provides that an adopted person may not be charged a fee for the provision of any information disclosed to them or to which they have been given access. In my view, it would be inappropriate to impose charges on adopted people seeking such information. That will be put beyond doubt by putting it in the Bill.

Amendment No 47 amends schedule 2, which provides for the disclosure of birth records by the Registrar General to persons adopted before the commencement of the new disclosure of information provisions in clauses 55 to 64. The Registrar General is required to advise any adopted person seeking access to their birth records that a counselling service is available to them. However, schedule 2(4) makes it compulsory for people adopted before 18 December 1987 to attend a counselling interview before the Registrar General can provide the information.

Compulsory counselling is a legal requirement under article 54(7) of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. It is intended to help an adopted person to contextualise the likely circumstances at the time of their adoption placement. That is to enable them to receive support with the disclosure of birth information, to obtain information about their origins and to be offered intermediary services if they wish to trace their birth family or are considering a reunion.

I have listened to the views of victims and survivors of mother-and-baby institutions. They consider that all adopted adults should be treated in the same way, with the right to decide for themselves whether to avail themselves of counselling. Taking account of those views and the views expressed by the Attorney General on the matter and having consulted the Registrar General's office, I am satisfied that, on balance, the requirement for compulsory counselling should be removed from schedule 2. Amendment No 47 provides for that. The duty of the Registrar General to inform adopted adults of the availability of counselling services will remain in place. It will be for the adopted adult, regardless of when they were adopted, to decide whether to avail themselves of counselling services, when to avail themselves of counselling and from whom.

I am confident that the Bill, the amendments to clause 102 and the regulations that will be brought forward following Royal Assent will strengthen support for an adopted person seeking to obtain information about their family and early life and, in some cases, to make contact with their birth family. Also, many birth relatives, particularly birth mothers, have little or no information that would enable them to trace a person from whom they were separated by adoption. The intermediary services established under the Bill will enable those family members, where possible, to obtain information and establish contact with an adopted person when that is what both parties want.

I thank again the Health Committee and the stakeholders, in particular the victims and survivors of mother-and-baby institutions and their families, for their positive engagement on that important aspect of the Bill.

Some Members raised queries about the cost of support services. In calculating the cost of implementing the Bill, we established that it will cost approximately £13·1 million to introduce the new framework for adoption and special guardianship support services over the first three years of implementation. That level of funding demonstrates a commitment to not only assess but provide support services that are assessed as needed.

I wrote to the Committee on the issue of compliance with data protection and public records legislation, and I can confirm that there are no compliance issues with the Bill. Indeed, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) reviewed the Adoption and Children Bill and the accompanying data protection impact assessment prior to the Bill's introduction to the Assembly. At that time, the ICO noted the safeguards built into the Bill. They include the powers to make regulations that relate to the retention, processing or disclosure of information. No issues were raised by the Information Commissioner's Office in relation to any provisions in the Bill, and that includes clause 102, which provides powers to enable the Department to make regulations in connection with pre-commencement adoptions. The ICO also advised the Department that it should be consulted during the development of the regulations, given that they will deal with the specifics of processing, and the Department has given a commitment to do so during the development of any regulations relating to the processing of that information.

With regard to Ms Ní Chuilín's closing comments, I spoke about that issue earlier, and I do not want to be ruled out of order again. I agree that it is disappointing that the amendments tabled by me and Ms Dillon were not selected for debate today. They were amendments to ensure the preservation of records relating to women and children in mother-and-baby institutions. I made it clear at the start of the debate that I will accept the Speaker's determination as final, but I wholly agree that it is vital that all relevant records, including those held by statutory agencies, concerning women and children in such institutions are protected, as they will be highly relevant to any future investigation or public inquiry on those institutions. I will work with everyone across the House to see what we can do to bring forward that necessary legislation, because, if it is not possible to pass the necessary legislation within the tight time frames between now and the dissolution of this Assembly, it will be for the incoming Health Minister in the next mandate to decide how best to give effect to the recommendations of the truth recovery design panel, and due consideration has been given to the amendments to my proposed new clauses and those tabled by Ms Dillon and her colleagues.

I am pleased to commend the amendments to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): You are finished, Minister, yes? Is that your contribution?

Mr Swann: Moved, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): OK. Thank you. Glaoim ar Chathaoirleach an Choiste Sláinte, Colm Gildernew, le críochnú. I call Colm Gildernew, Chair of the Health Committee, to make a winding-up speech.

Mr Gildernew: I thank Members for the points raised during this part of the debate.

First of all, I acknowledge that the Deputy Chair of the Committee, Pam Cameron, said that she was broadly supportive of the amendments and outlined her reasons for that. I thank the Deputy Chair for her work on the Bill and, indeed, on other important legislation. I also thank Committee members for how they approached all this to ensure that we were effective as a Committee, worked effectively with the Department and, most importantly of all, were able to bring those who have lived experience and will be impacted as a result of the legislation into the heart of the debate and, more importantly, into the heart of the amendments. The Committee has brought forward practical steps that will assist them going forward.

A number of Members discussed the hugely important issue of access to records. It was raised by Colin McGrath. At times, we heard harrowing evidence from some of the victims and survivors and families affected by the mother-and-baby institutions about the impact of not being able to access the story of your own life, access your own information and find out who you are. Barriers were put in their way, and unknowns were left there for them to deal with and address going forward. Our work on the Bill is a good example of the Committee, the Department and the Assembly working on issues of real importance to real people outside these walls, and I welcome the fact that a range of issues has been discussed and aired in relation to that.

That was built on by my colleague Carál Ní Chuilín, who also acknowledged the fact that there has been a delay in the legislation going back very many years. That underlines the importance of the Assembly moving forward with the legislation at this time. She also addressed the issue of the mother-and-baby homes records, coming from a point of great experience as a previous keeper of the records.

In that sense, her input on that was very valuable to the Committee and to the survivors of those homes. I welcome the Minister's reference to how those issues might be addressed going forward. I assure him that the Committee will work with him on that issue, because we are jointly concerned about it.

The Minister's remarks at the outset went to the heart of the issue and what this is all about. Despite the complexity, the volume of amendments and the toing and froing, it is about providing support and resources to children who are looked-after or those who have been adopted after being looked-after, so that they can live a happy and fulfilling life. I agree with the Minister on that.

The Minister referred to the issue of special guardianship orders and the importance of some of the amendments on that. He acknowledged the purpose of and motivation for the Committee's amendment Nos 3 and 12, and I welcome the fact that he agreed to support those.

The Minister touched on the issue of access to information. He acknowledged the concerns from his experience and perspective and, again, committed to looking at how those can be dealt with.

The Minister outlined the purpose of a lot of the other amendments and acknowledged the Committee's work in that regard, including on data protection issues, which he addressed and on which he provided an assurance to the House. I thank him for that and flag it up as a good example of people working together for the benefit of our community and people.

I acknowledge what the Minister said about the wording of amendment No 12. We are certainly willing to look at that if a tidy-up is required there. That is a practical thing that we can certainly do.

I conclude by thanking the Minister and his officials for demonstrating effective working with the Committee on the set of amendments in this group, which have come from either the Committee or the Department, and which we agree with and support across the board.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): We now come to the third group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 14, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 15 to 21 and opposition to clause 143 stand part. Glaoim ar Chathaoirleach an Choiste Sláinte, Colm Gildernew, leasú uimhir 14 a mholadh agus na leasuithe eile in éineacht leis. I call the Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Colm Gildernew, to move amendment No 14 and address the other amendments in the group.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I beg to move amendment No 14:

Mr Gildernew: I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Committee on Committee amendment Nos 14 and 15. I will also provide information on the Committee's consideration of the departmental amendments in this grouping.

Committee amendment Nos 14 and 15 relate to clause 122, which amends the Children Order 1995 by establishing that the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of a child looked after by an authority includes a duty to promote the child's educational achievement. Furthermore, it places a duty on authorities to ensure that, so far as is practicable or consistent with the child's welfare, in determining the most appropriate placement for a child, such a placement does not disrupt the child's education or training. In evidence, this provision was broadly welcomed, but concerns were raised about whether the word "promote" was sufficiently strong, with some using terms such as "woolly" and "weak" to describe it. Some stakeholders advocated a cross-departmental approach to include the Education Authority. The Fostering Network raised concerns that the clause may exclude those currently not in education, employment or training. The Commissioner for Children and Young People agreed that the proposed wording was not sufficiently strong. VOYPIC expressed the view that the duty should extend to resourcing greater participation in education and extra-curricular opportunities, bearing in mind that some children in care are unable to access the same range of opportunities, such as school trips, involvement in sports teams and participation in the arts and music, as their peers.

The Committee welcomes clause 122 and sees it as an important way to highlight the issue and recognise that further work needs to be undertaken to support children and young people who are or have been in care, education and training. The Committee agreed with those who gave evidence that the meaning of "promote" may not be clear. We felt that including the words "facilitate and support" alongside "promote" would provide a better understanding of what the intention of the clause should be.

The Committee also felt that the term "educational achievement" may feel unattainable for some children and young people and that it may place an unnecessary focus on academic achievement solely. The Committee therefore agreed an amendment that would underline that the purpose of the clause is not solely to do with academic achievement but achievement and development in education and training.

The Minister's amendment Nos 19 and 20 are on the definition of "harm". The Committee flagged that issue to the Department early on in order to indicate that we had concerns about the scope of the definition. I thank the Minister for taking on board the concerns of the Committee and the stakeholders and for producing revisions to the definition of harm.

Clause 133 amends the definition of harm in the Children Order 1995 to include a child seeing or hearing the ill treatment of another person. As a result, courts, police and trusts will be required to consider the effect on a child of witnessing domestic abuse when making critical decisions about their protection, care or upbringing. In written and oral evidence, there was a widespread call from stakeholders to broaden the definition of harm to recognise that children do not need to directly witness harm by sight or sound to be adversely affected. Key children's protection charities such as the NSPCC and Barnardo's recommended that the definition of harm be amended to reflect the fact that a child can be severely adversely impacted by domestic abuse in the home even if they do not see or hear that abuse taking place. The Commissioner for Children and Young People agreed that the provision should not include a condition that requires a child to have witnessed or heard incidents of abuse.

The Committee recognises that, even though a child may not witness or be present at or, at certain ages, even be aware of domestic abuse, domestic abuse in the home has a significant impact on the children who live in that home. The Committee believes that the definition of harm should be as wide as possible, and we therefore welcome the Minister's amendment to widen it. The Minister advised the Committee that the Children's Commissioner was content with the revised definition.

On independent services and amendment No 18, a number of stakeholders suggested that clause 132 be amended to more clearly reflect the fact that advocacy services will be independent of trusts. The Committee, therefore, supports the amendment, which clarifies the issue by providing that those services should indeed be independent of the trusts.

Moving on to reporting as far as the Children Order is concerned, I will comment on amendment No 21 in the Minister's name, which amends clause 143. Clause 143 removes the statutory duty on the Department to produce on an annual basis a report on the operation of the Children Order 1995. In evidence, the Department outlined its belief that the annual report was no longer needed, as it had been superseded by other reports. However, many of the organisations that provided evidence to the Committee strongly opposed the move to end the duty to lay the annual report.

The Committee agreed with the views of stakeholders that a report on the operation of the Children Order 1995 could be an important tool in identifying and addressing issues for looked-after children. I repeat: those children are some of the most vulnerable in our entire system. That was the principle on which we addressed the issue. We therefore agreed to oppose the Question that clause 143 stand part of the Bill. However, at last week's meeting, the Committee considered the Minister's further amendment, which would provide for a three-yearly report to be laid before the Assembly. The Committee welcomes that amendment from the Minister, and we are content to support it; therefore, we will not oppose clause 143.

The Committee is content to support the rest of the amendments in the Minister's name.

Mrs Cameron: Before I outline our party's position on the amendments in the group, I will make some general observations that pertain to the Bill. Whilst we are obviously striving, through the Assembly's legislative process, to amend the Bill to make it more robust and better law, it is important to stress that much of the provision in the Bill relates to enabling powers. Therefore, the outworking of the legislation will require substantive future scrutiny of the regulations drafted on that basis. That will be critical to monitoring the impact of the legislation and whether what we have before us, as it will be amended, delivers on the overriding purpose and intention of the Bill.

It would be useful to get an indication from the Minister on whether he intends at Further Consideration Stage to reflect the concerns put forward by the Examiner of Statutory Rules on the current standing of scrutiny for certain delegated powers provided for in the Bill. I hope that such clarity can be provided when the Minister addresses the House shortly.

An issue not addressed in the Bill is support for women and girls facing unexpected pregnancy. We would like the Minister to explain how the Bill can help to address that need and help those who are pregnant to make better and fully informed decisions on adoption earlier.

Amendment No 14 would extend the proposed trust duty to promote the educational achievement of a looked-after child to facilitating and supporting such support. Amendment No 15 would expand the duty to promote "educational achievement" to "achievement and development". Demonstrating what is meant by "achievement and development" will be key. There may well be a danger in providing a wider instruction to trusts. It may open the door to ambiguity and confusion amongst health professionals, and such an outcome ought to be avoided. Of course, should there be confusion, there will be an opportunity to tidy it up at Further Consideration Stage, as, the Minister has indicated, he may well want to do on other elements of the Bill.

Amendment No 17 makes future regulations setting out procedures for reviews or representations of looked-after children to be subject to draft affirmative procedure. That is a welcome addition. We need to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards in the system to give a substantive voice to young people and their advocates during their care. Amendment No 18 directs that advocacy services are to be independent of trusts. That is an important check and balance that will enhance confidence.

Amendment Nos 19 and 20 bring the definition of harm outlined in the Bill into line with domestic abuse legislation and ensure that abusive behaviour is not dependent on whether a child saw, heard or was present during the ill-treatment. That enhances the current definition and will benefit those looked-after children who are adversely impacted by being in home settings where domestic abuse or coercive control is present.

Amendment No 21 would provide for a report on the Children Order to be laid every three years. That may go some way to allaying the concern of the sector about lack of accountability. The amendment to clause 143 is welcome. The Committee and I oppose the removal of the annual reporting requirement on the operation of the Children Order. The Department's revised position of a three-year reporting interval is welcome.

The debate has been productive, and the large degree of unanimity across the House on the Bill and the amendments is striking. The Bill will impact positively on all those involved in the adoption process and make the framework more legislatively robust.

Finally, I thank the Chair of the Committee, the Minister, the rest of the Committee members and the Committee staff for all the hard work that has been done during what has been a relatively difficult period over the past couple of years, given that we have been dealing with the COVID regulations and the numerous Bills going through. It is hard to jump back and forward on topics, Bills and subjects. We thank everyone for the hard work that has gone into the Bill.

Mr McGrath: In my contributions thus far, I have spoken of the need for an adoption system that is transparent, efficient and meets the diverse needs of our children and young people. In speaking to the third group of amendments, I will focus on the importance of our children and young people's education and their learning environment.

Clause 122 is incredibly important and caused considerable conversation in the Committee.

As its title states, it is concerned with the:

and that is the focus of amendment Nos 14 and 15.

In discussing clause 122, the Committee felt that it was important to expand on the duty with which we are charged in order to ensure that children and young people, particularly those who have been adopted, have the best chance in life. For that reason, we felt that it would be prudent to change the wording of the clause from describing the duty of authorities to "promote" educational achievement to "promote, facilitate and support". After all, the adoption process is not simply a linear one in which a child is adopted and then that is it, with the child not being a concern any more. Rather, adoption is a complex system with many twists and turns. We are dealing with children who have potentially come from very disjointed and fragmented backgrounds. They are children with real and complex needs. If we want them to have the best chance in life and the best possible educational outcomes, we therefore have a responsibility to ensure that their educational journey is not just supported but facilitated insofar as that is possible.

I did not get to the point of tabling an amendment on the introduction of financial assistance for adopted children's educational journey. That may sit more with the Department of Education than with the Department of Health. It is key to note, however, that, in evidence that the Committee received, we were told that children who have gone through an adoption process are much less likely to succeed and achieve in their educational journey than their peers. It is therefore incumbent on government, in some shape or form, to try to provide help and support to assist children from an adopted background so that there is a level playing field. That would enable them to achieve. It would close the gap by making sure that they get as many education qualifications and develop as many skills as possible to aid them as they move forward in their life.

We need to acknowledge that a child's educational journey, like the adoption process, is complex and not simply a linear one from primary school through post-primary school and onwards. Many children take a different path and join regional colleges or other training programmes at post -primary age. Many will seek to expand their skill set and perhaps take up a trade. Those are also outcomes that we should definitely want to encourage. The clause shows the often cross-cutting nature of such legislation. Various Departments have a duty to ensure that we seek to retain those young people as much as possible and that we do not lose them to foreign shores, as has been the case. The Committee concluded, for that reason, that it was necessary for clause 122 to be amended from simply promoting a child's "educational achievement" to promoting a child's:

so that the element of training outside the formal education sphere could be included and promoted as well.

We also see the Bill's cross-cutting nature in clause 133. Although there are only three lines to it, they have a major significance. The clause pertains to the definition of "harm". I particularly welcome amendment Nos 19 and 20, which the Minister tabled and which reflect and learn from the recently enacted Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Bill by detailing that a child does not necessarily have to be present to be affected by harmful behaviour. That is so important. Again, that shows us the complex nature of the adoption system. Having worked in youth services, I can definitely vouch for the fact that young people soak up and absorb much more than they see. In the home environment, they absorb an atmosphere. They may not be directly witnessing behaviour, but they are definitely still exposed to it and carry the hurt and harm from witnessing or absorbing that behaviour into their life. I therefore welcome the fact that the amendments speak to that fact and try to mitigate it.

By its very definition, the adoption system is a complex process.

However, removing as many of the unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles to the process as possible will only help the children who need a for ever home.

The adoption system deals with children and young people from diverse backgrounds who often carry great trauma with them. By placing our children and young people at the heart of our adoption system, giving them a sense of control and making them part of the decision-making process, we empower them and help them to get a firm footing in life. We will walk with those children and young people and their new families on that firm footing as they commence an educational and training journey that will benefit them for the rest of their lives. While their start in life may not have been simple or straightforward and may, at times, have been traumatic and painful, we can ensure that they have a brighter future in which they are loved and supported and know that they have a valuable contribution to make to creating a more positive, inclusive and progressive society for future generations.

For those reasons, the SDLP supports the amendments in group 3.

Ms Bradshaw: As this is the first time that I have spoken in the debate, I pass on my best wishes to the Health Minister for a speedy recovery.

This is complex legislation. As a Committee, we have done our best to ensure that it will pass with the welfare of the child truly paramount in the adoption process. I echo the thanks of others to the Chair of the Committee for summarising the work that we did in Committee. I also concur with his thanks to the Health Committee staff who worked so hard to provide support to us during the Committee Stage.

Despite many people's best efforts, our adoption law is hopelessly outdated. It was designed for a different time when adoption was quite distinct from what it is now. It bears re-emphasising that the Adopting the Future strategy was published 11 years after the Children Order, and it is frustrating that we are 16 years on from that. This is the vital work that we are elected to do, which is why it is essential that we move swiftly. I have some reservations with the Bill as it stands. I remain unclear on why there is not a single adoption service for an area as small as Northern Ireland; I sincerely hope that we will have a long-term budget for adoption support services; I wonder why there is not more guidance on fees in clause 11, rather than that being left to regs; and I hope that we are doing enough in regulation and inspection to ensure that welfare, privacy and quality of life are truly paramount.

I turn to the Committee's amendments. The Committee had a wide-ranging discussion about the issue of educational achievement and whether the provision in the Bill on that was broad enough. We felt that it needed to be strengthened, and that is reflected in amendment Nos 14 and 15, which go further than promoting educational achievement, as set out in clause 122(1). We have broadened it to include promoting, facilitating and supporting:

That is a helpful and vital clarification, and I hope that it will have universal support in the Chamber.

I draw particular attention to amendment No 20, which is important and takes us a little beyond the improvements in the original Bill. It will essentially mean that the definition of "harm" does not just include seeing or hearing ill treatment but extends to being in any way affected by it. That reflects modern good practice and common sense.

I do not intend to repeat the broader comments that I made at Second Stage, but I will touch on where we have got to with the three points that I raised in that debate. First, amendment No 20 dovetails more effectively with the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act, particularly in relation to children affected by domestic abuse, even where absent. I was hopeful that a way forward could be found on that, and I believe that we have found it. Secondly, I remain worried that, where a child is conceived as a result of rape, the perpetrator will still be able to apply for access. I recognise why that cannot be dealt with in this Bill, but it remains a significant concern, as the application alone could cause considerable distress to the victim. That is intolerable, and we need to address it. Thirdly, I still think that we would benefit from stronger legislation to protect children from abuse in general. I recognise that that is not within the scope of the Bill, but the matters are clearly linked. We need to look at that urgently in the next mandate.

Like others, I remain concerned that we were not able to secure an amendment in group 2 that would secure access to mother-and-baby institutional records, despite a small step in that direction being made by amendment No 47.

I had hoped that there would have been an amendment to the Bill or the Children Order to achieve more in that regard. It is disappointing that no further progress has been made.

This update to the law has taken so long. A very human penalty has been paid for that, with adoptions here taking nearly twice as long in practice than anywhere else in the UK, even though it is well known that time is of the essence for children in such a position. Our response has been appallingly slow. However, this Bill gives us a chance to move in the right direction. I trust that the amendments move us further in that regard.

I place on record my thanks to the NSPCC, VOYPIC, Adopt NI and the many others who contacted the Committee. I am grateful to those who have gone through the system or are seeking to adopt through the system at present. Their experiences have been absolutely invaluable. I strongly welcome the Bill, and I support all of the amendments.

Ms Brogan: I join other Members this afternoon in wishing the Minister and his family well. I wish him a speedy recovery from COVID.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate today. The Adoption and Children Bill is an important piece of legislation. I commend all of those who have worked really hard to bring it to Consideration Stage. I also commend and thank the children and young people who shared their experiences and views. Their vital insights have assisted the progress of the Bill. This is substantial legislation that, if passed, will have a significant impact on the lives of children and families throughout the North. The Bill aims to modernise the framework for adoption and improve outcomes for children and families in need of support, children in the care system and those who have left it.

The number of children and young people in care has grown steadily over the past decade. There are currently more than 3,500 young people in care here in the North. There has been a 45% increase in the number of children in need of care in the past decade, with the numbers continuing to increase during the pandemic. I am sure that all Members here agree that anything we can do to improve the experience of and outcomes for young people in need of care is vital.

I support the Committee amendments and those tabled by the Minister. In my role as Sinn Féin spokesperson for children and young people and in my capacity as a member of the Education Committee, I want to ensure that the needs of children and young people, in this instance their educational needs, are prioritised throughout the legislation. Amendment Nos 14 and 15 are about strengthening the duty to improve the educational outcome for children and young people in care. Amendment No 14 adds a duty to "facilitate and support" to the Bill's duty to promote educational achievement, and amendment No 15 widens educational achievement to include:

It is really important that we do all that we can to support the education of young people in care. I thank the Committee for tabling those amendments. We know that young people in care often fare less well than their school-age peers, with just under 55% achieving five A to C grades in their GCSEs, compared with more than 85% of children in the wider population. Also, a much higher proportion of young people in care have special educational needs. Our children in care are amongst some of our most disadvantaged, and it is right that we pay extra attention to tackling that disadvantage.

Amendment No 21 sets out a duty to review and report at least once every three years. Advocates for the Bill have highlighted the virtue of it being child-centred and the interests of children being paramount. However, if we are not obliged to review outcomes and report on those findings in a transparent way, how can the interests of children be assured? Monitoring and scrutiny are fundamental to the provision of services to children and young people, so I support amendment No 21.

As I said, this is substantial legislation that is long overdue. At its heart are the lives and futures of many vulnerable children and young people. It is essential that we focus on their well-being. To that end, it is also important to ensure that there is transparency and accountability in the system so that any problems can be quickly identified and addressed. With only a matter of weeks left in the Assembly mandate, it is critical that the legislation proceeds through the House.

Mrs Erskine: I will keep my comments very brief, as an awful lot has been said in the Chamber already, and my colleague Pam Cameron dealt with each of the amendments.

On amendment Nos 14 and 15, it was clear from the evidence from foster and adoptive parents that they wanted to ensure better educational outcomes for their children. What spoke volumes to me in some of the Health Committee's evidence sessions was that adoptive and foster families felt that they were very much alone at times in fighting for the best educational outcomes for their children and young people. Unfortunately, at times, it became a postcode lottery, depending on your trust or social worker. That should not be the case.

There also seems to be a lack of awareness of developmental trauma and the specific needs of a child or young person who has gone through the experience of being fostered or adopted. It is vital to promote and support educational achievement and prevent any disruption to education or training. No child or young person should be left behind, especially if their start in life has been different to that of their peers. Amendment Nos 14 and 15 would extend the trusts' duty to promote the educational achievement of a looked-after child to facilitating and supporting such support. That would be welcome. It would strengthen clause 122. It speaks to some of the concerns that were raised to us via informal and formal sessions of the Health Committee.

I welcome the important check and balance in amendment No 18, which will enhance confidence around the process, as direct advocacy services are to be independent of trusts. Given the nature of the Bill, it is welcome that amendment Nos 19 and 20 bring the definition of harm in the Bill into line with that in domestic abuse legislation, as has already been detailed.

I support the amendments in group 3. I take this opportunity to thank the Health Committee staff, the Bill Clerk, the Minister and all those people who provided the evidence that helped to formulate this important Bill.

Mr Swann: I will speak first to amendment Nos 14 and 15, which have been tabled by the Committee Chair and relate to clause 122, which actually places a duty on authorities to promote the educational achievement of looked-after children. Amendment No 14 adds the words "facilitate and support" to the new paragraph 1A that is being inserted into article 26 of the Children Order. In its report, the Committee states that inserting those words:

The key intention of clause 122 is to ensure that trusts give sufficient attention to how children are performing at school or college in the same way that any good parent would. By requiring trusts to promote educational achievement, we are trying to close the attainment gap in education between looked-after children and their peers. The gap, which we tend to measure in terms of GCSE and A-level results, is too wide and needs to be closed. For example, in 2018, 54% of looked-after children achieved five or more A* to C grades at GCSE, compared with 85% of the general school population. While the measurement tends to focus on GCSE and A-level results, what would be expected from trusts by way of a duty to promote educational achievement would be quite wide-ranging and spelt out very clearly in guidance in the exercise of that duty.

For preschool children, trusts would be expected to secure access to a nursery or other high-quality early years provision that is appropriate to the child's age and meets their identified development needs; or ensure timely provision of a suitable educational placement; or ensure that sufficient information about a child's mental health, special educational needs or disability is available to their educational setting so that appropriate support can be provided; or inform the school that the child is looked after so that the relevant common funding formula can be applied to enable the child to receive any additional support required; or, as part of the care planning process, ensure that an up-to-date, effective and high-quality personal education plan (PEP) is in place that focuses on the educational outcomes and covers out-of-school-hours learning activities and leisure interests; or reports regularly on the attainment, progress and school attendance of looked-after children through the trust's reporting structures.

For young people aged 16 to 17, who are preparing to leave care, trusts would be expected to ensure that the PEP is maintained and builds on the young person's educational progress and that each pathway plan review scrutinises the steps being taken to help the child to prepare for when they leave care. That includes the young person's progress in education or training and whether they are able to access all the services needed to prepare for training for higher education or employment and ensuring that links are made with further education colleges and higher education institutes and that care leavers are supported to find establishments that understand and work to meet the needs of looked-after children and care leavers.

This is what is meant by promoting educational achievement. It is all about the provision of support and smoothing the path for looked-after children to enable them to make the same or similar gains as their peers in education. Whilst adding the words "facilitate and support" are arguably unnecessary, on the basis that that is what is intended in policy terms, I do not intend to resist amendment No 14.

I turn to amendment No 15, which also amends new paragraph 1A to replace the reference to "educational achievement" with:

Again, whilst I fully understand the motivation behind the amendment, I consider that it is not necessary and might be a duplication of other provisions in the Bill.

When a child is in care and subject to a care order, a health and social care trust assumes parental responsibility for the child, so the new corporate parenting principles that will be included under clause 123 will apply. A number of those principles are particularly relevant to the duty to promote educational achievement. Again, that includes to promote high aspirations and to seek to secure the best outcomes for children in care and for them to be safe and to have stability in their home life, relationships, education and work and to prepare them for adulthood and independent living.

With specific reference to the duty to promote achievement and development in relation to training and amendment No 11, Members should note that clause 128 also includes provision specifically aimed at providing further advice and support to care leavers up to the age of 25 and further assistance to pursue education and training. Connected to that, clause 129 places a duty on a trust to publish information about the services that it offers to care leavers. That includes services related to education and training. Taking into account existing provision, I do not consider it necessary to amend clause 122 to include training as part of that duty that it creates.

Amendment No 15 also extends the duty on trusts to include, alongside achievement, the promotion of a child's development in education and training. I will not support that amendment for a number of reasons.

While I fully accept that how a child performs in educational terms will be directly related to how they have developed emotionally, psychologically, socially, physically and mentally, I do not consider that that is what is reflected in amendment No 15. The amendment lacks clarity, which means that the duty will lack clarity and will be open to interpretation by trusts to which it applies.

Therefore, for the reasons cited, duplication with other provision in the Bill and a lack of clarity, I cannot support amendment No 15, and I urge Members not to proceed to place a duty on trusts that they may not be able to fulfil. I do not intend to push for a Division, considering the unity of purpose that has been evident throughout not just today's debate but the entire process to date.

The Department of Education has suggested that it may be preferable for clause 122 to refer to the child's "learning and development" rather than the child's:

As proposed in amendment No 15, the child's progress is continually assessed in their educational setting using a wide range of evidence and observations. Such assessments are used to identify particular strengths and weaknesses that may need to be addressed. For looked-after children, the personal education plan will be the key mechanism for tackling progress in learning and development and determining whether the child is developing in line with developmental milestones. Personal education plans will be placed on a statutory basis by way of care planning regulations to be made under clause 134. If amendment No 15 is agreed, I may seek to table an amendment at Further Consideration Stage to adjust the wording to take account of advice from the Department of Education.

Mrs Cameron referred to adoption at an earlier stage. There is a provision in the Bill that is intended to ensure that any woman making a decision on the adoption of their child is provided with advice, information and counselling services to help her with the decision. That may lead to earlier adoption or, indeed, may help a mother to decide not to place her child for adoption. It is important that mothers are given the time and space to make an informed decision. For that reason, it is not possible for a mother to give consent until the baby is at least six weeks old.

Ms Bradshaw raised a query about the single adoption agency. The Bill contains a power that will enable the Department to make regulations to enable some adoption functions or services to be undertaken or delivered on a regional basis — for example, one trust may act on behalf of an entire region.

I turn now to the first two amendments in group 3 that I have tabled: amendment Nos 16 and 17. Those amendments give effect to the recommendation of the Examiner of Statutory Rules that consideration should be given as to whether the required level of Assembly control should be altered from negative to affirmative resolution for certain regulations to be made under the Bill. During the debate on the group 1 amendments, I advised Members that I had proposed amendments to four of these. I have provided an overview of amendment Nos 16 and 17, which relate to the final clause that I intend to amend.

Clause 130 amends articles 35D and 45 of the Children Order, and that includes a provision to enable the Department, by regulation, to impose time limits for the making of representations, including complaints by looked-after children and other specified individuals about the discharge of an authority's function under the Children Order in relation to that child.

Subject to public consultation, it is anticipated that the regulations will provide that a complainant must make representations within one year of the grounds for such representations arising. It is also proposed that the regulations will allow an authority to consider representations made outside the time limit if that is justified and it is still possible to consider those representations effectively and fairly. Taking account of the possible concerns in moving to impose time limits on the making of representations, I am content that the relevant regulations should be subject to affirmative resolution procedure to ensure full scrutiny by the Assembly. As the regulations will be made under the Children Order, an amendment needs to be made to article 183 of that Order to provide that such regulations should be subject to affirmative resolution. Amendment Nos 16 and 17 provide for that.

I will now deal with amendment No 18 to clause 132, which inserts new article 45A into the Children Order. That places a duty on trusts to make arrangements for the provision of advocacy services. Stakeholders raised concerns that, as it stands, the clause does not clearly reflect the fact that advocacy services will be independent of the trusts. To address that, amendment No 18 will add the word "Independent" to the heading of new article 45A, which is to be inserted into the Children Order. I am advised that, if the amendment is agreed, the heading of clause 132 can also be updated to include the word "Independent", making it consistent with the amended heading of article 45A. The wording of the clause itself should not be amended. Whilst the clause does not specify that services must be independent, paragraph 3 of the new article 45A contains regulation-making powers to allow the Department to specify who may provide advocacy services. It is intended that this will be used to ensure independence by specifying that services may not be provided by persons linked to the service that is subject to representations. Additionally, paragraph 4 provides a further regulation-making power requiring authorities to monitor the steps that they have taken, with a view to ensuring that they comply with regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 3: ensuring independence. I want to make it clear that, while this will ensure independence from the service that is subject to representations, it does not mean that a trust cannot provide advocacy services. It is intended that guidance issued under the Bill for advocacy services will stipulate that, where it does, no person associated with the case under consideration — directly or in line management — for which advocacy is being sought can have any part to play in that case.

I will now deal with amendment Nos 19 and 20. Clause 133 as it stands amends the definition of harm in the Children Order to include where a child sees or hears the ill treatment of another person. As a result, courts, police and authorities will be required to consider the effect on a child of witnessing domestic abuse when making certain critical decisions about his or her protection, care or upbringing. In response to representations made by a number of stakeholders and by Members during the Second Stage debate, I tabled amendment No 19 to extend the provision in clause 133 so that harm includes cases where a child is adversely impacted by such abuse, even if they have not seen, heard or been present during the abuse. The amendment also brings the definition of harm in the Children Order more in line with the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021. I want to take this opportunity to thank Committee members, the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission for their advice and assistance in reaching an agreed definition.

Amendment No 20 provides for a consequential amendment arising as a result of the amendment to the definition of harm in article 12A of the Children Order. This article places a duty on the court, when considering whether to make a residence order or a contact order in favour of a prohibited person, to consider whether the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering any harm through seeing or hearing the ill treatment of another person by the prohibited person. A person is a prohibited person if he is, or if the court considers that he should be, prohibited by a non-molestation order from molesting another person. The purpose of making such an amendment is to ensure consistency of approach in the application of harm across all provisions in the Children Order. The Minister of Finance has policy responsibility for article 12A of the Children Order, and he has indicated that he is content for such an amendment to be made.

Finally in this group, I want to speak on amendment No 21, which replaces existing clause 143 with a new clause to amend article 181 of the Children Order. Clause 143 as it stands repeals article 181 to remove the duty on my Department to prepare an annual general report on the operation of the Children Order. By way of background, the first Children Order was published by my Department in 1999. It contained statistical information covering the period from the commencement of the Children Order on 4 November 1996 until 31 March 1998. It also contained information on key developments up to April 1999.

The report provided information and statistics about the courts, the Northern Ireland Guardian Ad Litem Agency (NIGALA), family support services for children in need, child protection, children looked after by health and social services trusts, the Education Welfare Service (EWS) and day-care services for children aged under 12. Due to competing work pressures, no further reports have been produced by the Department.

That said, several other reporting mechanisms are now in place that provide key statistical information on the operation of certain provisions of the Children Order. That includes NIGALA's annual report and statistics, reports under the delegated statutory reporting functions and children's services statistical data. Taking into account those now well-established reporting mechanisms, it was considered that producing an annual, additional report under article 181 of the Children Order would be a duplication of data that is already provided in the other reports and of the effort to produce such reports. Therefore, in seeking to ensure the efficient use of resources, particularly in the context of budgetary constraints, the decision was taken to repeal article 181.

The Committee recorded in its report that the stakeholders who addressed the issue strongly opposed the complete removal of the duty, and some suggested that a three-yearly report could instead be required. The Committee agreed with the views of stakeholders that the annual report could be an important tool in identifying and addressing issues for looked-after children. Taking all of that into account, I have tabled amendment No 21, which offers an alternative to the repeal of article 181. The amendment will replace clause 143 with a new clause that amends article 181 to require such a report to be prepared and laid at least once every three years, with the first report being prepared within three years of the date on which the Bill receives Royal Assent. The production of such a report annually is a resource-intensive exercise, and much of the information is already collected by other means. I consider that a triennial report would at least bring the added benefit of being able to demonstrate trends and patterns in the care and protection of children and young people under the Children Order.

The Committee initially gave notice of its intention to oppose the Question that clause 143 stand part of the Bill. However, I understand that it has now indicated support for my amendment and has agreed not to pursue its opposition to that clause. I am grateful to Committee members for their willingness to work together on the matter. I trust that amendment No 21 will enable us to reach an outcome that is acceptable to all.

That concludes my comments on the amendments in group 4. I commend amendment Nos 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 to the House, and, for the reasons outlined, I note amendments Nos 14 and 15.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Glaoim ar Chathaoirleach an Choiste Sláinte le críoch a chur le cúrsaí. I now call the Chair of the Health Committee to make a winding-up speech.

Mr Gildernew: Once again, there has been a useful and positive discussion on a number of important amendments.

I will start with the comments made by the Deputy Chair of the Committee, Pam Cameron. She outlined the high degree of cooperation and agreement on many of the issues and the fact that that was reflected in the discussions and in the work that was carried out by the Department and the Committee on the Bill.

Colin McGrath referenced promoting educational achievement. He underlined how complex the system is, saying that there is not a linear support system and that there needs to be the flexibility to provide whatever support is needed at any given time in order to give our children and young people the best chance in life that we can. He finished by flagging up that we have a duty to ensure that their educational and training journey is supported throughout that part of their life.

Paula indicated that she was pleased to see the Bill and that it put the welfare of the child as the paramount issue in all its dealings. That was important. She also raised some issues that she identified that may require further work and improvement. That is a reflection of the fact that the implementation and outworking of the Bill will need to be kept under consideration and that future work will be needed.

Nicola Brogan emphasised the needs of young children. She provided significant background evidence on the additional challenges that they face, particularly in education and training, and said that there needs to be a system of transparency and accountability for them.

The Minister addressed amendment Nos 14 and 15. The Committee saw the need to strengthen and underline the issue of promoting children throughout their training and education. The Committee felt that the clause would be usefully strengthened by including the words "facilitate and support", as it seemed to some members that "promote" was nebulous and would not have the same impact as the additional wording. I agree with the Minister that a range of Departments have a part to play in the solution. That is an important point. It will be incumbent on all Departments to provide specific support. While there is a core duty on the Department of Health, lots of other Departments will have a role and should play that role to the fullest.

The Minister said that he understands the motivation behind the Committee's amendment No 15 but feels that it is unnecessary and, perhaps, a duplication. That did not come across strongly to me during our consideration of it. However, I would much rather see an important issue such as that being duplicated than overlooked. We did not hear a lot of detail about how the amendment lacks clarity. With that amendment, the Committee is seeking simply to underline the fact that, at times, there is more to education than just educational achievement. One of the most interesting and exciting developments in recent years has been the opening up of access to apprenticeships and other forms of training and education for a range of people. The Committee felt that it was important that the Bill reflected those other avenues and created an onus to provide support and reflected the fact that educational achievement is not the only achievement. While educational achievement is hugely important and we all should and must support it, there are lots of ways of achieving results and progressing as a person alongside education, and those need to be at the heart of the Bill. I have no doubt that the Committee will look at any further amendments in the same spirit as we have engaged with the Bill throughout. We will certainly take a look at those.

I welcome the Minister's amendments and his and his officials' positive engagement with the Committee on that series of amendments. Amendment No 21 to clause 143 is a particularly good example of the Committee reflecting a genuine concern of the sector, moving to address it and the Department and Minister then moving to see how that concern could be met. That has been done effectively. I welcome the Minister's amendment No 21. There could be merit in a three-year reporting cycle, as you could get a broader look at the impacts.

I want to double back on something that I talked about earlier and that was mentioned throughout the debate: the additional challenges and vulnerabilities that the young people and families whom we are talking about have. They are nothing to do with them essentially; they are to do with barriers and challenges that we as a society put in front of them or that were put in front of them in previous times. To me, it is all about how we address and try remedy that situation. Far from those people being weaker, I have found, through my work as a social worker, as a community activist and as an MLA, that, often, they are some of the strongest people in our society. However, at times, they have had insurmountable barriers placed in front of them. That is where the legislation can make a fundamental difference at an earlier stage in the life of a person, parent or family. I commend the Minister for taking it forward and the Committee for working on it in that light.

I hope that everyone who gave evidence, in particular the young people whom we have mentioned on multiple occasions, because they had multiple impacts on the Bill, see and hear their voice being taken into the Chamber today and reflected in the work that has been done.

This is a good day for those young people, for parents, for adoptive parents, for carers and for our community.

I will strike one note of caution: this work is clearly not completed. It is important and represents a massive step forward, but it is by no means completed. There will be significant complexity in its implementation, and there will be ongoing work for the Assembly and future Health Committees to do in order to oversee, scrutinise and improve how that is done and, as result of the reporting, to review how it is impacting on the ground.

Having said all of that, I hope that the decisions taken today and the Bill as it moves forward will reverberate positively through our community and young people and families — indeed, for the next number of years and down through the generations — to address what we have identified as significant inequalities and disadvantages. I hope that we have played our part in addressing those today.

I once again thank all Committee members for their diligence and for their extensive scrutiny of the Bill, and I thank the Committee staff and the Committee Clerk for all their work in facilitating us in that. I thank the Minister and his officials for their engagement on it and, indeed, as mentioned earlier, the Assembly's Engagement team, who were crucial to our work on the Bill.

We are supportive of all the amendments in the group. I wish the Minister well. Clearly, he has struggled, and I appreciate the fact that he brought forward this important Bill today. I hope that you get some rest, Minister, and are able to recover before your important role kicks in again.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): We have a bit of a marathon of votes and one thing or another now, so bear with us as we work through them all.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Before I put the Question, I remind Members that we have debated the Chair's opposition, on behalf of the Committee, to clause 143, but the Question will be put in the positive as usual.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Amendment No 58 is a paving amendment to amendment No 59.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Adoption and Children Bill. The Bill now stands referred to the Speaker.

Members should take their ease until we move to the next item of business.

Ms Sheerin (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Bill of Rights): I beg to move

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allocate two and a half hours to the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 15 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have seven minutes.

Ms Sheerin: I welcome the opportunity to bring the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Bill of Rights to the Chamber. My initial remarks will be made in my capacity as Chair of the Committee.

A bill of rights for the North has been discussed and debated for decades. It was committed to most memorably in the Good Friday Agreement of 1998. In January 2020, 'New Decade, New Approach', the basis on which we are all here, called for the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the creation of a bill of rights. The commitment outlined that a bill of rights should be:

of the North and:

A resolution of the Assembly in February 2020 established the Ad Hoc Committee on a Bill of Rights and required it to submit a report to the Assembly by 28 February 2022. Today, I present that report to the Chamber.

As a Committee, we have had the privilege of hearing from a wide range of witnesses with expertise in human rights and constitutional law, including academics, senior judges, lawyers and representatives of the Human Rights Commission. We heard from negotiators of the Good Friday Agreement, trade unions, the voluntary and community sector, language groups, the women's sector, LGBTQ+ activists and the Churches, amongst many others.

We were keen to hear from as many people across society as possible and particularly from less heard groups, as a bill of rights should be for everyone. We issued a survey that gathered over 2,300 responses, and we followed it up with a series of workshops broadly organised according to section 75 groups. Indeed, one of the highlights for the Committee was listening to the views of people who live here and hearing about their experiences.

We also held informal meetings with justices of the Supreme Courts of the UK and the Twenty-six Counties and met TDs, Seanadóirí and MPs through the Houses of the Oireachtas Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. They were engaging and beneficial discussions, and we were grateful to have them.

On behalf of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Bill of Rights, I record our sincere thanks to all those who contributed to the Committee's evidence gathering, whether at formal or informal Committee meetings, and to the individuals who took time out of their day to respond to the Committee's survey or attend one of its stakeholder events. I also thank all the organisations who supported the Committee's call for evidence, particularly Disability Action, the Red Cross, Positive Futures, Mencap, the Now Group, the Housing Executive and Women's Aid, among so many others. Committee members are so grateful to each of the schools that took the time to participate in our focus groups, facilitated by the Assembly's Education Service, and to the children and young people for providing their views during an academic year that had been interrupted so much owing to COVID.

I acknowledge the invaluable contributions and support of the Human Rights Commission and the witnesses who shared their expertise with us from across the globe — from Queen's University Belfast to Trinity College Dublin, from London to Toronto and Cape Town. Each contribution was valued and considered by all members. We were pleased with the high level of engagement that we had throughout, which helped to ensure that the views of all communities and minority groups were represented.

I also thank the Assembly's engagement, education and communication teams for coordinating and promoting the Committee's call for evidence, as well as the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe) for its papers.

As specified in 'New Decade, New Approach', a panel of five experts was to be appointed jointly by the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Many of the Committee's discussions and decisions were to be subject to prospective advice from that panel. Therefore, it was a source of immense disappointment and frustration that the panel was not established, despite the many letters that we sent to the Executive Office seeking an update on the process.

I turn to the evidence that we received. We heard that the human rights of many people here are not adequately protected, particularly in relation to disability, age, religion or belief and ethnic group. Our survey identified strong support for a bill of rights. Of the respondents, 80% said that a bill of rights was "very important" or "important", while 6% thought that it was "not important at all". That support was evident at our stakeholder events. The Committee heard about the potential benefits of a bill of rights, including that it can:

and "Help support political stability".

A small proportion of witnesses and stakeholders raised concerns about the creation of a bill of rights, including those whose views on the matter are well recorded — Jeffrey Dudgeon and Lady Trimble. Some questioned whether the bill of rights is needed in view of existing legislation, while others were concerned that it might remove decision-making abilities from the legislature. That said, in June last year, the Committee agreed that it supported the creation of a bill of rights in principle in light of the evidence received and the references in 'New Decade, New Approach'. That decision, however, was reached subject to the advice of the panel of experts, which was not made available. The DUP, in its party position paper, then reneged on that decision.

I come now to the particular circumstances of the North, as set out in the Good Friday Agreement. As a Committee, we heard diverse opinions on that, with some calling for different interpretations. Many of those we heard from were concerned about the impact of Brexit on human rights here. There were particular concerns about the limits of the "no diminution" commitment and the reduced application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. As a Committee, in the end, we were unable to formulate a view about what constitutes the particular circumstances of the North or about the impact of Brexit on those particular circumstances due to the absence of a panel of experts and the content of the DUP party position paper.

The Committee received a range of ideas on the approach that should be taken to a bill of rights, many of which are not mutually exclusive. For example, some advocated a tightly scoped bill of rights, and others pointed to approaches in other jurisdictions. A number of witnesses, such as Professor Colin Harvey, suggested that a bill of rights could act as a framework with further legislation and policy underpinning it. Others questioned whether primary legislation should address human rights issues instead. A common theme for many was that a bill of rights should draw from international human rights instruments. Again, as a Committee, we could not reach a decision on what approach to take to a bill of rights due to the absence of a panel of experts and the content of the DUP party position paper.

Bills of rights often combine law, symbolism and aspiration. Albie Sachs, former justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, and Baroness Helena Kennedy QC told us about the important role of a preamble in setting a value system and a tonality for a bill of rights, using language that resonates with people. There was strong support amongst those whom we heard from for a bill of rights to set out an aspirational vision based on foundational values. The values that seemed to resonate most included human dignity; mutual respect; justice; respect for culture, identity, traditions and aspirations; and equality. Many people said that they wanted to move away from the traditional orange and green identities and, as a result, thought that parity of esteem did not belong in a bill of rights for today, given that it refers to two communities and does not reflect an increasingly diverse society. The Committee provisionally agreed, subject to the expert advice of the panel, that a bill of rights should contain a preamble with an interpretative effect, meaning that it would guide the interpretation of a bill of rights over time. However, that decision was invalidated by the absence of a panel of experts and the content of the DUP party position paper.

As a Committee, we spent considerable time considering what rights should be included in a bill of rights. As I have already alluded to, we identified strong support for civil and political rights, with 88% of respondents to our survey calling for their inclusion. Civil and political rights protect freedoms such as the right to liberty, the right to life and freedom of expression. Many called for the European Convention rights to be incorporated, with supplementary rights to include equality and anti-discrimination provisions. There was also huge support for economic, social and cultural rights, with 82% of survey respondents calling for their inclusion. Those rights focus on protecting people's development and livelihoods, and there was particular support for healthcare, housing and education rights. The Committee also heard some concerns about such rights, relating mainly to enforcement in government and budgetary constraints. Eighty-six per cent of respondents called for the inclusion of environmental rights. That was particularly strongly advocated by the children and young people with whom we engaged, who also advocated the inclusion of children's rights, mirroring the provisions in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Ultimately, the Committee was unable to make a decision on which rights to include due to the absence of a panel of experts and the content of the DUP party position paper.

I turn to the enforcement of rights. We heard regularly, particularly from civic society representatives, that a bill of rights must include justiciable rights; that is, rights that are capable of being decided on in a court of law. Others raised concerns about the adjudication of rights, including potential implications for the separation of powers. A common thread running through the evidence of the then Lord Chief Justice Sir Declan Morgan, Sir John Gillen and others was that any bill of rights must be specific to ensure that rights are enforceable. We also received evidence from the Human Rights Consortium and Professor Christopher McCrudden about a range of available options for the enforcement of economic and social rights, but, again, the Committee was unable to make a decision on the justiciability and enforcement of rights due to the absence of a panel of experts and the content of the DUP party position paper.

A number of witnesses, including Dominic Grieve QC, suggested that the Assembly should legislate for its own bill of rights; indeed, we also heard that the devolved legislators in Wales and Scotland had incorporated international human rights standards into their domestic law. However, there was substantial support for a bill of rights to be taken forward at Westminster, as per the Good Friday Agreement. The Committee agreed in September last year that a bill of rights should be taken forward at Westminster. However, that was subject to the advice of a panel of experts that was never appointed and was subsequently negated by the content of the DUP party position paper.

The subject of a bill of rights has been discussed and debated by many people over the years. I recognise that many will be disappointed that we were unable to present a draft bill of rights here today. It is some consolation for me, as Chair of the Committee, that we have contributed to the wider conversation about human rights and equality here. I hope that our detailed and thorough consultation, research and report will assist future work and negotiations. On behalf of the Committee, I call on the Assembly to approve the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Bill of Rights.

I will now make some remarks in my capacity as Sinn Féin's equality spokesperson. I know that I speak for my whole party when I say that I am deeply disappointed by the abject failure of our Committee to produce a bill of rights that could be implemented in the North. As I outlined previously, we spoke to and engaged with hundreds of people from numerous walks of life. I thank formally all of those who gave of their time to help us. I thank the former Deputy Chair Mike Nesbitt, who showed steady commitment throughout, and to Paula Bradshaw, who ably replaced him. I also thank those who joined us temporarily, including my party colleague John O'Dowd.

All of the five main parties came together two years ago and committed to the process. Sinn Féin's record on rights is clear and unequivocal. I believe that we were in the majority, in that we were acting in good faith here. To be honest, I perhaps naively believed that everyone was on the same page throughout. We, the SDLP, the Alliance Party and the UUP might have had some differences in what the final product would look like, but we all came together and did the work. Unfortunately, we were working with one hand tied behind our back, as the DUP blocked the establishment of the panel that was supposed to advise us and then, at the very last minute, produced a position paper in which it stated that it did not believe that a bill of rights is merited and that any that we would create should focus on principles, not rights. Whilst that is disappointing, it is hardly a surprise. It is consistent with all of the other things that would bring real benefit to people's lives here that the DUP has blocked or tried to block.

Mr Allister: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: No, thank you.

They include implementing the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) report findings, Acht na Gaeilge, the commissioning of abortion services, the protocol and, perhaps, a Sinn Féin First Minister. We are in a cost-of-living crisis. We have just been dragged out of the EU against the wishes of the majority. The British Government are implementing legacy proposals that no party here is happy with. We know that people across the North are living in a rights deficit: our Irish language speakers, migrant workers, our LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters, women — the list goes on. We know that a majority of people across the North want to see the delivery of a bill of rights; they told us so. We know that legislation for socio-economic rights would prioritise in government many of the issues that are to the fore of the minds of all of our constituents: healthcare, housing and how to feed your children and heat your home comfortably at the same time. Never has it been more important for us to deliver rights. The DUP's blockage will last for only so long.

Mr Frew: I have been on the Committee for a short time, yet I wish to speak about the report. Having read it and engaged with the Committee, I believe that this was a useful conversation to have.

Rights and the concept of rights are probably as old as man. They stem from ancient life, particularly from the Romans. It is important that there be a layer of rights, because democratic institutions sometimes fail. It is important to have a superior set of laws that can be used, if needed, in case a political party, even a democratic one, that may well have a private army behind it, or a shadowy organisation organising and leading it, would have power and trap it for itself. That is why rights, the concept of rights and that superior level of law are important: because, at that point, they take the judgement out of the hands of politicians and put it into the hands of judges.

Even from the last century, we have the experience of the unspeakable wickedness that was conducted by the Nazi Government. They ensured that everything that they did was wrapped up in law, rules and regulations so that even the most wicked acts of the Nazi Party were lawful. It was important that we had that superior source of law by which members of the Nazi Party could be judged, condemned and, in a lot of cases, executed. That is why we need that superior level of rights.

The concept of rights is assured. It is something that we support. A number of issues were borne out even in conversations in Committee, however. One is the rights in this part of the United Kingdom that may well become different from those in other parts of the nation and how that would affect the body corporate and the democratic principles and institutions of this place. Another is the expansionist model of, or approach to, rights. Rights are important, but they should be a high-level principle and need to be used only if the democratic institutions fail to protect people.

I must say that it has certainly been a lesson for me over the past two years when I have seen this democratic institution fail on so many occasions. We have had to pass laws retrospectively. Regulations have brought harm to our people by removing their right to earn a living, to work, to have a proper education, to play sports and to be active. The Assembly needs to take a good look at itself. That is one of the reasons that we need a superior level of law — a level of rights — that protects people when democratic institutions fail.

There is a balance to be struck between the courts and having a democratic organisation that is fit and proper and working in the right way. Those are two of the branches of government there to protect people, because that is what government is all about.

Mr Stalford: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mr Stalford: Does the Member agree that provision of a bill of rights is, in essence, the creation of a written constitution and that, as we have seen in the United States of America, a written constitution invites differing interpretations? The situation in America now is that it is a deeply polarised society, where the appointment of justices to the Supreme Court falls along vicious partisan lines, because the country has a written constitution and two schools of thought as to how it should be interpreted.

Mr Frew: The Member makes a very good intervention.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an additional minute.

Mr Frew: I must say that he has added to the debate and certainly to my position. He is right. Look at the Supreme Court in America and how politicised it is. Can anybody argue that that is the direction in which we should go? I believe that it is not. We have finely balanced levels of government.

We have the legislature, the courts and the Executive. That is basically where we need to be. It is about the balance and us being the guardians of democracy, making sure that it does not fail or hurt our people. We cannot say that that has been the case over the last two years.

When I look at the judge-led system in our courts and at some of the people who contributed to this conversation over the last two years, it strikes me as being very clear that the judges do not want us to expand on this approach at all. Sir Stephen Irwin, former Lord Justice of Appeal of England and Wales, thought that there was little to be gained from a bill of rights while the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) applies. Rather, he thought that the desire to improve social conditions and hold Governments to account should be fulfilled through the political system. I agree with Sir Stephen Irwin 100%. That is the fine balance that we need to bring in.

We can talk about all sorts of rights. There is this thing coming in now about positive rights — Lord Sumption, of all people, talks about this — whereby people now demand a minimum standard of something: a minimum standard of living, a minimum standard of health and a minimum standard of education. All of that is really good and aspirational stuff, but it should not be at the superior level of rights and the superior level of law; it should be the democratic process that achieves that for our people. This legislature and the Executive should achieve that for our people so that we have good standards of living, good standards of health and good standards of education. If you go and put those aspirations into the superior form and level of law — ie rights — you will have courts imposing their will on the legislature here, and every single pound that we take off our people to put into a Budget that we want to enact and spend in a certain way will be contradicted and challenged in the courts. Then, the judges will reign supreme in a democratic system. That will take away the balance of the democratic institutions that has been a strong pillar of this nation for decades and centuries.

Let us not dabble in things. Let us have the conversation, let us see where we can improve people's lives, but let us mark very clearly the difference between the Executive, the legislature and the courts.

Mr Durkan: John Hume once said:

A bill of rights specific to Northern Ireland and its unique circumstances is the embodiment of that vision, yet, 24 years on from John's Nobel speech, the commitment made to that under our guiding document, the Good Friday Agreement, whether people like it or not, remains outstanding.

The failure to deliver on the promise to safeguard the rights of all citizens in the North is unacceptable, particularly in the context of a post-Brexit society in which the protections it would afford are needed more than ever. A rights-based framework, while not a panacea, makes for a solid foundation for peacebuilding.

As others have said, a bill of rights has been talked about for a long time. I do not have such a long time to talk about it this afternoon, so I am grateful that the Chair has done such a thorough job of reporting on the Committee's work.

A bill of rights, or the lack of one, affects everyone. The SDLP has long advocated for, and strongly supports, a robust bill of rights that includes protections for socio-economic rights. The agreement mandated a bill of rights that would, among other things, reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland. It is too often forgotten that a disregard for socio-economic rights was at the heart of the conflict here. In our post-conflict society, a bill of rights is an integral tool in peace and reconciliation.

By placing duties on Executive Ministers and other public authorities, a bill of rights would sharpen the focus at the beginning of the decision-making process and offer redress when things go wrong, as they have a tendency to do.

What is more, a bill of rights could prove transformative for areas such as the north-west and others that have been routinely neglected when policies and legislation are designed. In short, it would help to guarantee the rights of everyone in the North and provide remedies where those rights are breached.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Durkan: Certainly.

Mr Frew: Will the Member explain to the House how a bill of rights will impact his people in a way that the laws that we create in here will not?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an additional minute.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his intervention. Mr Frew described us as "guardians of democracy", which is particularly perverse coming a week after his party collapsed the Executive. I will put the question back to the Member: can he give robust examples of where the law here protects people's rights? It goes nowhere far enough in far too many areas.

A bill of rights would help to guarantee the rights of everyone here and provide remedies where those rights are breached, whatever current or future constitutional status or political arrangements may be in place. I am acutely aware that we live in a constantly changing and growing society. In that vein, the two-communities stipulation is no longer applicable and must be widened to reflect all citizens. Disappointingly, despite the continued overwhelming public appetite for this ambitious instrument, the framework has failed to sprout wings and has been hampered by stalemate after stalemate and, quite simply, a lack of political will.

The demand is evident from the extensive consultation process and expert advice, as outlined by the Chair. People are eager to move this process along. NDNA opened the door, once more, to that process. I and other Committee members — and we have gone through a few — approached the Ad Hoc Committee with a renewed sense of vigour, ambition and hope, in the knowledge that protecting the inalienable rights of all was a key provision in the delivery of lasting peace. In the wake of Brexit and the subsequent loss of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, this vehicle for change became even more critical to help bridge the gap left behind.

To touch briefly on some of the detail, the Committee determined that the three-generations approach to rights was most appropriate. I acknowledge that, during the consultation process, individuals highlighted the scope and limitation of the bill of rights. It is important to note, however, that this framework was merely to be a springboard to further, more-comprehensive legislation. It is clear that change is afoot, not just here but globally, particularly in the context of climate change. As David Kenny stated:

That gap would allow Northern Ireland to address the climate crisis robustly by embedding provisions in a bill of rights and to stand as global leaders on, arguably, the greatest challenge facing our society and generations to come.

Another area of particular focus was equality rights, specifically the right to safety and protection from discrimination. From our engagement with children and young people, embedded safeguards for minority groups, including the LGBTQ+ community and ethnic minorities, were at the forefront of their asks. We need to deliver those protections to improve lives and make a tangible change for the betterment of our society.

The adoption of a bill of rights for Northern Ireland is in everyone's best interests. The SDLP and others are keen to keep the momentum going despite the protestations of the DUP. I am disappointed, but not overly surprised, by the DUP's block on this vital piece of work. It is, sadly, typical of the zero-sum approach that the DUP seems to apply to so much. A win for one does not mean a loss for the other. That is certainly not the case where the bill of rights is concerned, rather this provision is good for everyone. I am particularly bewildered by the DUP's rationale of not wanting to take a separate approach to human rights legislation from that of the UK, given its renowned cherry-picking on numerous rights issues.

I pay tribute to everyone who contributed to the consultation process. The consultation was extensive, deep and thorough and provided detailed research and expert advice. It is a great source of shame that we are not going to be able to progress the bill of rights. I thank those who contributed for their work.

The failure to establish a panel of experts is hugely disappointing and will only serve to deny important human rights protections being enshrined in law. I do want to say, though, that this report will assist future delivery. Things are changing.

This bill of rights will come, maybe not in this mandate but in the next. This provision was promised almost a quarter of a century ago, yet political self-interests have hampered and hindered its advancement at every turn. This is about putting people, not parties, first and delivering for our shared home place and its people. The narrow-mindedness of the few cannot hinder the progress desired by the many and required by all.

Mr Chambers: My party has approached the work of this Ad Hoc Committee positively. I do not wish any remarks that I make this evening to reflect any opposition to the principle of a bill of rights. I welcome the fact that the Chairperson has been able to present a report to the House tonight. However, I have to point out that she omitted to mention some actions that she has taken recently on the work of the Committee which I consider to be an abuse of position.

Before a regular meeting of the Committee on 25 November 2021, all parties were requested to submit a position paper for inclusion in the report to be brought to the Assembly — the report we are discussing today. No indication was highlighted on the agenda of that meeting that the Chair would single out a paper from one particular party for a political critique. I am not going to defend that party. Its Members are in the Chamber and can defend themselves. It would not have mattered whose paper was drawn out for political critique; I would still be making the same remarks. I want to make that very clear.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member take an intervention? No?

Mr Chambers: At that meeting [Interruption.]

At that meeting, there also seemed to be —

Mr Speaker: Order, please. The Member has indicated that he does not want to take an intervention.

Ms Sheerin: OK.

Mr Chambers: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

At that meeting, there seemed to be an awful lot of inside knowledge of what was happening at the Executive and who had blocked what. I can only speculate on where that information came from. The meeting on 25 November was short. It lasted maybe 10 minutes. The Chair put forward a proposal, which was seconded, to suspend the meeting pending the appointment by TEO of a panel of experts. That rather threw me, because the Committee had been working for the last year and a half to two years without a panel of experts. I could not understand why, at such a critical stage, when we were coming to the endgame of producing a report, it was thought appropriate to suspend the work of the Committee. An agenda item for the meeting was the date of the next meeting, so we did not even get to that point. I certainly left the meeting disappointed that the work of the Committee was at a standstill. I could not see a panel of experts suddenly and magically appearing between then and when the report had to be presented at the end of this month.

A couple of days later, correspondence was received from The Law Society expressing its grave disappointment at the indefinite suspension of the work of the Committee. A learned body like the Law Society seemed to have the same interpretation as me: that the work of the Committee was suspended indefinitely.

At the end of December, Committee members received an email from the Clerk saying that there was to be a meeting of the Committee on 13 January. It was actually cancelled and took place a week later on 20 January. Given that a panel of experts was not appointed in the interim period, I could not understand why there was a sudden change by the Chair, who had previously suspended the Committee pending its appointment, but, suddenly, we were going to have a meeting without the appointment of a panel of experts.

The minutes of that meeting read that the Committee agreed to suspend the meeting until a panel of experts was appointed. I did not agree to that. No vote was taken at that meeting to support that minute. They say that the camera does not lie, but there are people in the Chamber who may feel that the camera can lie, because they have insisted that a vote was taken. I have watched the video many times; I cannot see any vote being taken.

I raised a number of issues around the meeting of 25 November. When the minutes came out for the meeting that was held on 20 January, at which I raised those matters, not one word of my concerns was contained in those minutes. When I objected to that, my suggestion that those things should be put in the minutes had to be subject to an electronic vote by the Committee. At that point, I withdrew from the work. I did not resign from the Committee, but I retired from the work of it, because of what, I felt, was going wrong.

I was at the meeting on 25 November in good faith, and I was prepared to advance the report at a time when Committee time was at a premium, yet the opportunity to hold a meeting on that day was not taken. It was suspended, yet we were called back four weeks later without that condition of a panel of experts being appointed having been met. I am extremely disappointed with that. The Chair of the Committee needs to reflect on her actions, particularly those taken at the meeting of 25 November.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Member for that contribution.

Ms Armstrong: I rise on behalf of the Alliance Party to discuss the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Bill of Rights. My Alliance colleague Paula Bradshaw was the party's representative on the Committee and will respond later as Deputy Chair when she makes a winding-up speech on the motion.

Alliance is supportive of a strong, stand-alone bill of rights for Northern Ireland, and, with the review of the Human Rights Act at Westminster, we feel that more than ever. We welcomed the inclusion of a commitment in the 'New Decade, New Approach' document to establishing the Ad Hoc Committee to move the process forward. We believe that that would have been an opportunity to create a bill of rights that everyone could support, that would be sufficiently durable to take account of the changing circumstances in an evolving and diversifying Northern Ireland and that would, at last, move us on from the out-of-date premise of two separate communities.

Alliance wants a bill of rights that is consistent with European and international human rights standards and is capable of guiding legislative and policy development now and into the future. However, as it stands, we have no bill of rights, and, instead, we have a Committee report that highlights the inability that parties still have to recognise and support the rights of people living here. The Ad Hoc Committee was due to be supported by an expert panel that was to be appointed by the FM and DFM, but the recruitment for that panel has not taken place.

The failure to appoint an expert panel is disappointing, especially when contributors felt that the human rights of many individuals and groups in Northern Ireland are not sufficiently protected. Disability, age, religion or belief, cultural background and ethnic group were among the areas in which stakeholders thought that additional human rights protections were needed. Indeed, a majority of respondents to the Committee's survey — 61% — and most of the young people who participated in focus groups disagreed with the premise that:

With over 80% of consultees confirming that a bill of rights is important, it is extremely concerning that the block to progress is the lack of an expert panel and a DUP submission that, I feel, undermined the process. Although there was consensus on 23 September 2021 that a bill of rights should be enacted at Westminster, in line with the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement, no decision could be taken while there was no expert panel.

As provided in the Committee report, I will confirm why Alliance supports a bill of rights. Alliance believes that ascribing special rights to two communities results in direct and indirect discrimination against those who do not define as either. More broadly, speaking of solely two communities entrenches division when the purpose of a process like this is to produce a bill of rights with the potential to unite all sections of society behind it.

While the right to associate to exercise our rights is a freedom that we enjoy and that should be protected, there is also a right not to do so without any resulting diminution of rights. By placing the emphasis on group rights and on rights for specific groups in the manner that the 1998 and 2006 agreements did, we are often entrenching inequality. Given the intersectional nature of rights, this has the potential to cause disadvantage to groups that we should wish to protect.

I will give an example of where such a diminution of rights occurs. Currently, there are two openly LGBTQ+ people in the Assembly. As a result of group rights known as parallel consent, their votes count for less than those of others in respect of legislation and some motions. The consequence is a form of indirect discrimination against gay people in the Assembly and thus in society among the electorate, albeit unintended.

Similarly, under 50:50 recruitment, the groupings of Catholic, Protestant or other meant that black, Asian and minority ethnic applicants, despite being an under-represented group, were not recognised as such. We see that continued through fair employment monitoring that counts how many Catholics and Protestants are employed, ignoring whether there is fair representation of black, Asian and minority ethnic people —

Mr Stalford: Will the Member give way?

Ms Armstrong: Not just at the moment.

— people with disabilities or other section 75 groupings, or considers people who sit in a number of those groups. Most people have multiple and complex identities, and the rights should first attach to the individual rather than to groupings.

I will give way.

Mr Stalford: The Member is absolutely right in saying that people's identities are multifaceted. However, will she accept that there was a time when the only people in the entirety of the European Union whom it was legally permissible to discriminate against in relation to employment were people who happened to come from a Protestant community background and were applying for a job in the police?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an additional minute.

Ms Armstrong: Thank you, Speaker. I might not need to take that. As a woman who is a Catholic, I will maybe remind you of that at some other time.

Alliance would like to see in a bill of rights the first-generation rights that are largely consistent with those in the ECHR and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These rights are long established domestically and internationally. We are concerned, however, that protocol 12 of the European Convention, relating to the prohibition of discrimination, has not been ratified by the UK. Therefore, the Assembly does not have the legislative competence to incorporate it into Northern Irish law.

Concerning victims of crime, article 14 of the ECHR outlaws discrimination on the basis of any status. In this context, Alliance does not believe that a bill of rights should single out groups for special treatment. Therefore, we do not support any differentiation between victims of crime and conflict-related crime.

With respect to second-generation rights, Alliance strongly believes that a bill of rights should enshrine a right to healthcare; education rights should include a right to integrated education as we take the view that this is a supplementary right that meets the particular circumstances test that appears in the 1998 agreement; and identity and cultural rights, given their particular relevance in Northern Ireland.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Ms Armstrong: Not just at the moment.

We would like to see other rights included. However, each would be greatly enhanced by their inclusion in supplementary stand-alone legislation. That would allow for the incorporation of parts of ratified international instruments through Northern Ireland legislation, so it would not go over the head of the UK Government.

A progressive realisation clause should be carefully drafted and included in a bill of rights. As community spokesperson, I am concerned that there will be further instances where, for example, one welfare benefit is reduced while another is increased. That means that some people are worse off while others are better off. That is linked to non-retrogression and how that could be challenged in the event of policy change by the UK Government such as the recent removal of the £20 uplift to universal credit. Alliance would subsequently support an obligation on the relevant Department to demonstrate that it took reasonable measures to achieve the progressive realisation of rights.

Alliance would like to see the inclusion of a broad heading of a right to a healthy environment that should be supplemented by stand-alone legislation enacted by the Assembly. Alliance remains supportive of the Good Friday Agreement provision that a bill of rights for Northern Ireland should draw on appropriate international instruments and experience. It was clear from the evidence supplied to the Committee that there is support for the ratification of several international human rights instruments in domestic law.

After many hours of input, witness submissions and the collation of papers, this report, unfortunately, provides no concrete recommendations. All I can say is this: what a waste of an opportunity, time and money.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Unfortunately, you can almost see what way this is shaping up. I still do not know what the Ulster Unionist Party's position is on a bill of rights. We had Alan's attempt to set the record straight, but, if I go by what Mike Nesbitt said at the Committee about that party's intention, I think that the UUP wants a sort of bill of rights while it is clearly established that the DUP wants no bill of rights. Let us be clear about that.

We talked about the need for rights, but, first, let us go back a step. I thank the Committee staff and the staff in the Assembly for their engagement. More importantly, I thank the scores of people who came in front of the Committee. Most members attended the meetings. Most of us had the courtesy to attend the meetings, I should say. We spoke to a lot of people who came to us because of the rights deficit, and that is why a bill of rights came forward in NDNA.

We also need to step back a bit to the reason why these institutions collapsed in 2017. It was not just because the DUP incentivised people financially to burn money under the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme; it was also the complete and blatant disrespect for rights. Even in this Chamber, we had a DUP MLA — he is now an MP — mocking people who use the Irish language.

There are lots of things that go right across this community — I agree that it is not one or other; it is "the community" — and I am prepared to grow and develop with them. I will not use the word "tolerate", because it is offensive. I fundamentally do not come to that position naturally, and I fundamentally disagree, but I have —

Mr Stalford: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I will give way in a minute, Christopher.

Going back to Roman times and talking about the courts is pathetic. People had to go to court because of a denial of rights in this place. There was supposed to be an anti-poverty strategy, but activists had to go to court to ensure that there was one, and it was then reflected in NDNA. There was supposed to be an Irish language strategy, but the Member's party and others voted against it. Activists had to go to court, and it was then shown in NDNA. We were supposed to have a bill of rights, and you, even though you agreed in principle, then put forward your no bill of rights. Christopher, I will give way at this stage.

Mr Stalford: I appreciate the Member's giving way. She and I served together for many years on Belfast City Council, where people from different and disparate backgrounds had to work together because nobody had a majority. That was just the nature of the place. She talked about respect and disrespect. What message of disrespect is conveyed when the person who opened the debate tweeted a joke about her former colleague, the then deputy First Minister, taking a gun to go and meet the Queen, someone to whom I pledge my allegiance?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an additional minute.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle.

Christopher, I am not surprised that you have made those points, because you have nowhere else to go. To be frank, you have nowhere else to go.

Mr Allister: You have no answer to them.

Ms Ní Chuilín: My answer is that the Member has apologised. What I hear from you is that you will not accept that apology.

Let me say this about Martin McGuinness: he very reluctantly left this place because of people like you denying rights. We talk about the generations coming behind us. I completely agree with Mark that there will be a bill of rights. There has to be a bill of rights. If it is not done by my generation, people like Emma coming behind me — I am proud to call her a comrade and a colleague — and people who are watching the debate will ensure that there is a bill of rights. Why? We have had trans kids who talked about ending their life because they felt that they were not included as citizens. We will get them their rights. We have Irish language speakers who were mocked in the Assembly by your colleagues. They will get their rights. You talk about economic rights and about the deprivation in communities. You are for academic selection and social engineering.

Some of the most deprived communities are in areas of Belfast that we represent, so let us stand up for them, not just those in Christopher's community or my community but the whole lot of them.

Having a bill of rights would be one of the greatest expressions of citizenship. Christopher, respectfully, I will disagree with you, and you will disagree with me, because using America as a constitutional example was probably one of the worst that you could use. If people do not want to implement rights, they will wave a piece of paper. That is what they will do, and that is what you have done. You have waved a piece of paper and said, "Not on our watch". I want to say this: the days of "Catholics, nationalists, gays, lesbians and human rights experts need not apply" are gone. They are well gone. We all apply, and we all will apply. That is the message that the Assembly needs to send out.

I will finish on this. I know that I am going to meet those people again, including those kids, but I am not embarrassed because Sinn Féin and others worked really hard. We were honest about the difficulties with the issue, but we did our best.

You talk about shadowy figures. In Dundela house, within a matter of weeks, you were in, you were out. I do not think that you can talk about shadowy figures in respect of anybody or anything, Paul, to be frank.

Let us be honest. When kids come up here with their school, we try to present it that we are all united, but — I will give you a heads-up — I am going to call it out and say, "I wanted a bill of rights, but these guys opposed it". I still do not know where you are, Mike. That is why I am keeping my powder dry.

I will say this: it will come back, and it will probably do so through the courts. We had human rights experts, citizens, activists and others asking us for support and to reflect their lives, their personalities and their core beings in this place, and you let them down. You let them down big time. To be frank, this is where you are when it comes to rights: human rights do not apply. It is really regressive that this place is now a backwater when it comes to rights. I take heart and positivity from the Members in the Chamber I have worked with and the fact that we did our best. That report is there, and we will come back to it. As sure as the day is Monday, we will come back to it, and there will be a bill of rights.

Mr Stalford: I mentioned that I sat on Belfast council. I sat across from people in Belfast council whose charge sheets, had I printed them off, I would have been able to paper the City Hall with. I will not be lectured on rights by anyone from the Benches opposite — absolutely not. There is one absolute right in law — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Stalford: There is one absolute right in law, and that is the right not to be tortured. That is an absolute right that is accepted as a universal right. How many people did the fellow travellers of the party opposite deny that human right to? So I am not going to take that from any Member opposite when it comes to rights.

There is a historical context to the issue. I and Ms Bradshaw, who was the Deputy Chair of the Committee, have been engaged from the very start. I do not know who it was that either of us offended in our respective parties, but we were nominated to serve on the Bill of Rights Forum. The Bill of Rights Forum at that time was tasked with thrashing through some of the issues that we are thrashing through now. The longer the arguments and the debate went on, the more similarities I could see with those processes, arguments and debates.

One of the arguments — Ms Ní Chuilín disparages the United States of America and says that it is a bad example — was that, if you produce a bill of rights, you are, in effect, producing a written constitution. She said that it will come through the courts — how many of her colleagues went through them? — and it may well do that, but that will then require legal interpretation.

In the United States of America, you have two schools of thought: the expansionists — the people who do not believe that the Founding Fathers should be taken at their word, or that the Constitution should be interpreted in the strict sense; and the originalists — those who do. Generally, the people who are nominated by the Republican Party are originalists, and the people who are nominated by the Democratic Party are expansionists. There are two schools of thought. We all know that, if you get two lawyers into a room, regardless of whether it is in the United States of America or elsewhere, there will be two schools of thought on whether a black crow is white. We know that, if we enact law and it ends up in front of the courts, there will be schools of thought. However, if this, in effect, becomes our constitution —

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Stalford: No, perhaps later.

If this, in effect, becomes our constitution, it will have implications for the judicial appointments process, and it will be perfectly legitimate, in a democracy, for people to ask those who are being appointed to high courts how they would interpret the constitution.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Stalford: Very briefly.

Ms Bradshaw: I am curious as to what rights that were asked for by the people who gave evidence the Member is opposed to.

Mr Stalford: Absolutely none. In Northern Ireland, we have, in law, some of the strongest protections of rights in the world. Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act makes that clear.

Mr Frew: Human trafficking.

Mr Stalford: The legislation that is being passed on human trafficking and exploitation makes that clear. Those are already in law. To some extent, section 75 already addresses the key point.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Stalford: Let me make some progress.

The key point in the brief is the "particular circumstances" of Northern Ireland. That is, and should be, central to everything that we examine. When Dermot Nesbitt, someone who was in the room when the Belfast Agreement was negotiated, came to give evidence to the Committee, he detailed what he meant, and what was meant, by "particular circumstances". That is essential.

I spoke to Mr Nesbitt about this earlier: I fear that it may be time to insert a new chapter into the Standing Orders on the roles and responsibilities of Chairs of Committees, especially this Ad Hoc Committee. It is important that Chairs know what their roles and functions are. I am disappointed. We had valuable and useful discussions in the Committee. I do not think that it ever got particularly bad-tempered, so I am disappointed at the tone that was struck in the opening of the debate and in subsequent contributions, but I am not going to lie down like a dog and take it. I am not going to take the rewriting of history. There was genuine engagement, on my part, in that Committee and its work.

I thank the Clerk and everyone else who contributed to the work of the Committee. I thank the people who gave evidence. We live in a democracy; it is OK to sometimes have different views. There may well be a prevailing consensus; that is fine. If there is a prevailing consensus, that is fair enough, but it is never unacceptable to hold to a minority view, and, on these issues, evidently, we do. I have stated my position and made it clear that I think that we have a strong human rights framework in Northern Ireland. We have two bodies, established in law, that are dedicated to the protection of human rights and equality. We are one of the most human rights- and fairness-compliant societies in the world. It is important. The debate will resume in the new term, and that may present an opportunity for further discussion to see where we go with it, so I am not shutting the door on it, but let us not try to drag this down into rancorous acrimony, because that will not serve any useful or helpful purpose.

Mr Nesbitt: As has been mentioned, I served on the Committee for a period. Indeed, I was the Deputy Chair to Ms Sheerin. When Steve Aiken, our party leader at the time, asked me if I would be the Ulster Unionist Party representative on the Ad Hoc Committee, I said, "Yes, but with one condition".

The condition was that he and our MLA group understood that I was instinctively in favour of a Northern Ireland-specific bill of rights and would work to try to achieve one. There were no dissenting voices.

Two things struck me very quickly during my time on the Committee. One was how we would shape a bill of rights, which effectively would be in two parts. The first part would be a preamble, which would set out our vision. It would be an explanation, particularly for younger generations, of why we were doing this. It would therefore be, at the same time, aspirational and inspirational. On its own, however, that would not be of great use, so the second part would contain the judicable rights. As many people, such as Sir Declan Morgan and Sir John Gillen, made clear in their witness evidence, we should be as detailed and as specific as possible when we are detailing our judicable rights, because those are the ones that the judges may have to rule on.

Mr Frew, in his comments, talked about handing over control of our Budget, potentially, to judges. I have to say that that runs utterly contrary — utterly contrary — to all the judicial evidence that the Committee received. In fact, that evidence made very clear that, if a citizen were to go to a court and say that they wanted a judicial review of the Budget on the basis that, for example, not enough money was going into housing or that too much money was going into something else, the judge would chase them, saying that that was a political decision and not one that the courts would take under their notice. What the courts perhaps would take under their notice would be a complaint that said that a Minister for housing — I am not choosing that role as an example because of who the current Minister for housing is — was clearly putting out budgets that advantaged one community over the other. That would be judicable, and a judge would take a view on that.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. It would be much more nuanced than that. It would not be as blatant. It would happen over time. When somebody is saying that they want a minimum level of education or health or whatever, those are all great aspirations in this political House. If that is being determined through the courts, the judge does not have to say to a Minister that he is not spending enough on health. It would be a basic truth at that point, as deemed by the court.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an additional minute

Mr Nesbitt: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. All that I can say to the Member is this: perhaps he has greater legal authority than I do.

Moreover, there is the concept of progressive realisation. That is an understanding that if we say, for example, that every citizen has the right to good-quality, appropriate housing, we will not deliver that in one mandate, because, if we were to, there would be no money for education, schools, hospitals and road building. It therefore happens progressively over time.

The second thing that I noticed very early on was the fact that so many expert witnesses were willing to come forward and give us both written and oral evidence for no charge. Locally, as the Chair of the Committee mentioned, we received evidence from Colin Harvey. I was also very impressed by Christopher McCrudden. Nationally, Dominic Grieve, on multiple occasions, gave us detailed papers and followed them up with oral evidence. Internationally, no less a figure than Albie Sachs from South Africa, one of the original Constitutional Court judges, made himself available at no charge. Members will recall that that is why I then questioned why we were appointing a panel of five experts at £500 a person a day. It cost £2,500 to get a panel of experts to come to speak to us when experts were falling over themselves to make themselves available for free. Why five? I know that it is a commitment in NDNA, but why five? Was it to give us a consensus or to give us five various views from which we were to pick the one that we wanted?

I have watched the video of the meeting of 25 November, so I understand what happened. I am going to criticise the Chair of the Committee at this point.

First of all, there was an attack on the DUP. I do not hold a candle for the DUP. There was an attack on its position that we do not need a bill of rights.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Nesbitt: Briefly, because I want to finish this point.

Ms Sheerin: Thank you very much, Mike.

Mr Nesbitt: Third time lucky.

Ms Sheerin: Exactly. The reason for the attack on the DUP position

was that it was a complete contradiction of what it had agreed to. That is a fact, Paul. Sin é.

Mr Nesbitt: I am glad that the Member has got one intervention in during the debate.

I chaired the Executive Office Committee and, before that, the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) for five years. I will not drag the Speaker into it, but he sat on that Committee. Blockages in that Department are the order of the day, so, if the DUP is responsible for the panel not being appointed, let us not pretend that that is some sort of evil one-off. It happens day and daily, or it did in the five years that I chaired the Committee.

It is valid — I do not agree, but it is valid — to say, "We do not believe in a bill of rights". NDNA only set up a Committee to look at the bill of rights. It said that we would:

to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The Belfast/Good Friday Agreement did not say that there will be a bill of rights. It said that we would:

a bill of rights. The scope might be zero. So it is OK, although I totally disagree with it, for a party to say, "We do not want a bill of rights".

The Ulster Unionist Party wants a bill of rights, and so the question becomes this: do we go forward with consensus, meaning that all five parties have to agree to a way forward, or do we go forward with sufficient consensus, which is a concept that we relied on heavily back in 1998 in the negotiations that led to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement? If you go with consensus, at a certain point it becomes a veto, and no party in the House should have a veto.

We are happy to endorse the report. We are sorry that nothing further is likely to happen in this mandate, but let us go again when we can.

Mr Allister: The report speaks to me of the absolute sham and farce that 'New Decade, New Approach' was. It was supposedly the new beginning, the new approach. This debate speaks to just what a fraudulent suggestion that was. 'New Decade, New Approach' was nothing short of a vehicle of convenience to get the Executive parties back into the Executive. There was no agreement about very much, other than that they wanted to be back, with the ministerial limos, the salaries and the titles. It turned out, not for the first time, to be a vehicle with no engine. It did not even splutter to a standstill; it never got started. Such a farce, and the report personifies that. The Committee laboured for months and did not deliver so much as a mouse.

There are some in the House who tell us that we must have a bill of rights. Those who say that loudest are those who have spent their political careers refusing to condemn the most fundamental breach of human rights: the right to life. The very people who have twisted, turned, equivocated and used weasel words to avoid condemning those who took innocent life come to the House and parade themselves as those who want and believe in rights — such hypocrisy.

Of course, my fundamental position is this: a bill of rights speaks to a national position.

It is nations, not regions, that have bills of rights. I leave aside the whole debate about whether it is suited to our constitutional framework: I do not think it is, but that is another debate. A bill of rights speaks to a uniformity across a constitutional and political entity of rights that should be respected. It has no regional perspective or ownership. It is of national significance, and therefore I do not believe that we need or should have a Northern Ireland bill of rights.

We have a United Kingdom Human Rights Act, and that is the proper ambit and facility for addressing these issues. That is the correct facility. This idea that you would have a regionalised bill of rights is, to my mind, a constitutional nonsense.

I am quite content that the report and the Committee ran into the sand, and I am not at all surprised that it did. At the end of the day, it was being driven by some who have anything but respect for the most basic human right of all.

Mr O'Dowd: We have an incomplete report, a Committee of the Assembly frustrated, MLAs determined to do their work but unable to do so and no progress made with regard to a bill of rights. All this is a direct result of the DUP's opposition to rights and equality. It is not only regrettable, indeed, it is outrageous that an Ad Hoc Committee, established under New Decade, New Approach was unable to complete its work because the DUP blocked the establishment of the panel of experts by refusing, by all accounts, to appoint Professor Colin Harvey, an eminent and internationally recognised human rights expert.

The refusal to appoint Professor Harvey is political discrimination, and it needs to be called out for what it is. The days of "No nationalist need apply" are gone for ever, never to return. Let me be absolutely clear. The days of unionist parties practising discrimination and inequality are numbered and running out. There will be no return to the failures of the past. The DUP will not stop progress or forward momentum to a society based on equality and rights for all.

The disgraceful slurs that Colin Harvey has been subjected to in the media and online, prompted Amnesty International to issue a call for Professor Harvey to be protected in the face of a sustained campaign of hostility that has, in the words of Amnesty International:

Those behind the slurs and the discrimination against Professor Harvey cannot wash their hands of that.

As my colleague Carál said, we will return to this. There will be a bill of rights. Some in the Chamber should remember this: today's majority can be tomorrow's minority. When you are in the minority, that is when you most seek protection under the law and in a rights-based society. When Mr Allister, Mr Frew or whoever it may be denies the need for a bill of rights, they should think of it in this way: in the not-too-distant future, the unionist community will be a minority, who will, quite rightly, seek protections under the law. What will be the title of the document under which they will seek protection? It will be a bill of rights. If I am around to see that day, I assure you that I will support any minority seeking a bill of rights.

Mr Carroll: Given the many injustices that exist in our society, a bill of rights is the bare minimum needed to address the inequalities that still prevail. My party fully supports a bill of rights being implemented, but I do not believe that the work can or should stop there.

I recently met the bill of rights working group, and I thank it and others for their work in progressing this issue and keeping it firmly on the agenda. The DUP's effective blocking of the appointment of the panel of experts is not only shocking but a disgraceful attempt to deny rights and protections to everyone across our society, including the DUP's own voters and constituents, who have been neglected by the exact policies that have been cheerled and implemented by that party in particular. We also need to call out the dog-whistle approach to Colin Harvey, the human rights lawyer and activist, whose name has been dragged through the mud in a disgraceful attempt. The DUP needs to stop blocking progress as it has done for so long. It needs to allow the panel of experts to be appointed and a strong bill of rights to be implemented.

For me, there is a lot of important information and comment in the report. One of the most important pieces of evidence that the Committee received was the strong support expressed:

For too long, this place has literally othered those groups who fall outside the paradigms of unionism and nationalism, so it is extremely important that rights be embedded in legislation. Frankly, however, we also need to focus on the actions of Ministers in the Executive. For example, we have strong anti-discrimination legislation here that makes it illegal and a criminal offence for people to be treated differently on the basis of their race and ethnic background. Not so long ago, however, when everybody was supposedly "in it together" in the context of COVID, Black Lives Matter activists were still disproportionately targeted and fined for taking part in safe demonstrations when others were not. To be honest, there is no use in enacting robust legislation if the content and motivation behind it is not practised and if Ministers can operate in a way that is contrary to it.

Yes, we are for a bill of rights, but we are also for a fundamental change in how this and any future Executive treat marginalised communities and those who are discriminated against. It is significant that, in the Committee's report, there was higher support for a bill of rights amongst women — half of our population who are repeatedly failed, ignored and impacted on by decisions that have been taken by consecutive Executives. In any bill of rights, there should be a right to healthcare that is implemented and actionable. It is disgraceful that we have a two-tier health system in which people can get treatment only if they can afford it. In reality, the right to healthcare is denied to many hundreds of thousands of people.

The report also states that the denial of economic and social rights can be a causal factor of social conflict. That has been the case historically and also recently when, last summer, the DUP, using a combination of the protocol and blame of the other side for the poverty that exists in the communities that the DUP itself represents, tried to whip up communities that had been left behind. That needs to be called out as well. Trade union rights was one thing that I did not notice in the report. Employment law is devolved. I am progressing a trade union freedom Bill through the Assembly, and a bill of rights needs to take that into consideration.

Language rights were mentioned as well. They need to be in a strong bill of rights too. We obviously had mention of LGBT rights in the report. The LGBT community, as a whole, is mentioned, but it is important to recognise that huge advancements have been made through rugged determination and by people facing down the actions of the ex-First Minister and others. It is also important to recognise that trans rights are particularly under attack, with disgusting and disgraceful dog-whistle attacks and the denial of services, funding and support to people who need to transition.

In conclusion, we need to recognise that unionism thinks that denying things such as a bill of rights will strengthen the North's place in the UK. In reality, by blocking it and taking other positions, unionism will actually speed up the growing calls for a united Ireland. Unionists need to get with the changing programme.

Mr Speaker: I call Paula Bradshaw, the Deputy Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Bill of Rights. She will have 10 minutes in which to conclude and wind up the debate.

Ms Bradshaw (The Deputy Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Bill of Rights): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before I begin to wind up on behalf of the Committee, I will add a few words on behalf of the Alliance Party.

My party colleague Kellie Armstrong covered it very succinctly, but I want to lay out my disappointment at how this process has evolved.

I share what is nearly a sadness in the Chamber about the fact that we were not able to deliver for the many people who came before the Committee, submitted evidence, turned up at focus group sessions and spent a lot of time putting their hearts and souls into submissions. As far as I am concerned, so many opportunities are gone for now, such as the opportunity for a preamble that would have set us on course for a more cohesive shared future; the opportunity to provide an effective pre-legislative scrutiny tool and a guiding document for policy decisions; the opportunity to give domestic effect to the rights in international human rights treaties that are not available here at present; the opportunity to protect against the negative impact of Brexit, not least on employment and environmental rights; the opportunity to guard against the unpicking of the Human Rights Act by the UK Parliament in its ongoing review; the opportunity to address years of discrimination and marginalisation felt by so many who have been referenced this afternoon; and, finally, the opportunity to fulfil a long-standing deficit in the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.

I turn to the contributions. The debate was opened by our Committee Chair, Emma Sheerin. She covered the history of the journey towards a bill of rights in Northern Ireland and very much laid out how intensive the engagement with the different sectoral groups and the contributions from the human rights experts were. We were blown away at times. As the former Deputy Chair outlined, those experts' willingness and their support for us to deliver on this was humbling at times. We really benefited from the contributions from around the world. I place on record my thanks to the Chair for her chairmanship of the Committee. She was at every meeting, full of enthusiasm. Her contribution in steering our work was immense.

The next contributor was Paul Frew. He laid out his reservations in relation to a bill of rights, talked about the differentials in this part of the UK and expressed his concern about an expansionist approach to rights here. Mark Durkan talked about the fact that the lack of a bill of rights affects everyone and about protections for socio-economic rights. He said that the bill of rights would be an integral piece of our peace and reconciliation process and that it is in everyone's best interests that we have a robust bill of rights. Alan Chambers provided an overview of his discontentment with the Committee over the last few months. I can identify with that in some respects in that it got quite messy towards the end; had things run a lot more smoothly, I do not think that we would be in this position this evening.

As I said, my party colleague Kellie Armstrong outlined the Alliance Party's position very well. She drew out the areas in which there are deficiencies and highlighted the fact that, from Alliance's point of view, the bill of rights would have had the potential to move us away from the entrenchment of green and orange. She talked about how things such as environmental rights would have been an important addition to our legislative framework.

Carál Ní Chuilín went back and talked about the rights deficit that led to the need for us to have a bill of rights. She said that that will come. She said that it needs to come for trans rights, Irish language rights and economic rights. She thanked all those people who came to us and spoke so sincerely about the ways in which having their rights enshrined in a bill of rights would make a difference to their lives.

Christopher Stalford, who is not in the Chamber, talked about the historical context, about how laws can be interpreted by two different judges or lawyers in a court room and about his concern that a bill of rights could be misconstrued. He mentioned that, in this part of the world, we have some of the strongest rights that are enshrined in law. I think that he was genuine when he said that, at times, there was genuine engagement at the Committee in its discussions with contributors.

Mike Nesbitt, the former Deputy Chair, said that, when he was asked to sit on the Committee, he told his former party leader that he was instinctively in favour of a specific bill of rights for Northern Ireland. His positivity and his enthusiasm for engaging with the people coming before the Committee was evident throughout his tenure. He talked about the two parts of his vision, and, as I mentioned, he really appreciated the contributions from the expert witnesses.

Jim Allister criticised New Decade, New Approach. He said that it was supposed to be a new beginning but that we have delivered nothing. He also said that a bill of rights speaks to a national position rather than a regional one across a political entity; he does not believe in a bill of rights for Northern Ireland; and it would be a constitutional nonsense.

John O'Dowd contributed his thoughts about how regrettable and outrageous it is that we have been unable to complete our work. He mentioned the public row, which was very unedifying, about the potential appointment of Professor Colin Harvey to the expert panel. I was pleased that the most recent Committee agreed to write to Professor Harvey to outline our support for him and to state that any public comments were not reflective of our respect for his academic background and work to date on human rights. John O'Dowd finished by saying that today's majority may be tomorrow's minority and that he will seek to protect minority rights, regardless of the background.

Finally, Gerry Carroll said that a bill of rights should be a bare minimum. He thanked the Human Rights Consortium for its work over not only recent months but many years. He said that the DUP needs to stop being a blocker of rights and that we need to move away from green and orange politics and make stronger anti-discrimination legislation in Northern Ireland.

I thank all Members who contributed to the debate this evening. The Committee Chairperson began by discussing the approach to the work. It was a really valuable process, but, as I said, it is disappointing that we were not able to reach a conclusion. We heard from the Human Rights Consortium; international and national academics and legal representatives; civic society; refugees and asylum seekers; the LGBTQ+ community; children and young people; those living with disabilities; those from different cultural and religious backgrounds; and women's groups — to name but a few.

As Members will be aware, the Committee is bound by a resolution of the Assembly to submit a report by 28 February, which is what we have before us. Human rights impact on the daily life of everyone in this community. It was a privilege and an honour to be part of the process. I reiterate the Chairperson's thanks to all those who gave so generously of their time to contribute to the Committee's work. Their participation has resulted in a very rich body of evidence. Although it is unfortunate that the Committee was not able to reach agreement on all the issues, our detailed and thorough consultation, research and report can help any future work and negotiations on a bill of rights.

I thank the Committee Clerk and the staff team around her. They did sterling work. It is very much appreciated.

Mr Speaker: I thank all Members for their contributions.

Mr Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease for a moment or two before we move on to the next item in the Order Paper.

Mr Irwin (The Deputy Chairperson of the Audit Committee): I beg to move

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allocate one and a half hours to the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

Mr Irwin: I ask the House to support the motion.

There is no denying that the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) and the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO) perform critical functions. Both bodies exercise their functions effectively and provide key support to the Assembly and our citizens. However, the Committee's review found that there is scope to enhance the governance and accountability of both bodies to ensure that there is alignment with best practice and to provide greater support and confidence to the Assembly and the public.

The Committee, as part of its review, requested written evidence from stakeholders and expert witnesses in the field of public audit and the Public Services Ombudsman. Fifteen written submissions were received, and 12 oral evidence sessions were held. On public audit, the Committee considered evidence from the Comptroller and Auditor General, the chairperson of his advisory board, the Local Government Auditor, the chairpersons of the statutory bodies in England, Scotland and Wales — the National Audit Office, Audit Scotland and Audit Wales — and three experts in the field of public audit. On the Public Services Ombudsman, the evidence received included that from the chairperson of NIPSO's audit and risk committee, the president of the International Ombudsman Institute and three expert witnesses in the field. The Committee also commissioned comparative research on structures and practices in other jurisdictions, and we sought legal advice on particular issues.

At the conclusion of the review, the Committee made 23 recommendations. I do not have time to go through each and every one, so I will highlight the key recommendations or parts thereof. The first two relate to the work of the next Audit Committee, and they focus on implementation. The implementation of many of the recommendations will require legislative change through the Assembly or Westminster. Some do not require legislative change and can be implemented through administrative measures. The Committee, because of where we are in the current mandate, calls on the next Audit Committee to identify and pursue the appropriate legislative avenues and to consult stakeholders on the implementation of the recommendations.

I move to the recommendations relevant to the Audit Office, and, starting with the tenure of the Comptroller and Auditor General, there is no fixed term in Northern Ireland. In Westminster, there is a fixed, non-renewable term of 10 years. In Scotland and Wales, the term is eight years. The evidence that was received by the Committee demonstrated that a fixed non-renewable tenure negates the risk of long-term postholders being open to external pressures and avoids the familiarity and complacency that can arise from being in a long-term position. The Committee therefore recommends that the tenure of the next Comptroller and Auditor General is a non-renewable term of 10 years. In order to ensure that public accountability is not compromised, it is recommended that C&AGs are prohibited for a period of two years after leaving office from holding a position with any organisation or person whose accounts fall to be examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

The next set of recommendations deals with the corporatisation of the Audit Office strategy board membership and code of practice. At present, the Comptroller and Auditor General is supported by an advisory-only board. During oral evidence, the C&AG indicated that any adjustment to the strategy board from an advisory board would not be a big one. The chairperson of the advisory board expressed the view that his preferred model would be for the board to be completely independent of the C&AG.

It should be noted at this point that, following reforms, corporatisation reflects the position in other UK jurisdictions. Northern Ireland not following the example of England, Scotland and Wales would be seen as an anomaly. The Committee therefore recommends that the Audit Office be formally separated from the Comptroller and Auditor General and be established as a body corporate in the form of a strategy board.

The overarching function of a strategy board will be to scrutinise and support the activities of the C&AG while respecting and maintaining the independence of his or her statutory role and ensuring that effective governance systems are of the highest standard and are maintained. In order to be certain of independence, the Committee recommends that non-executive members of the board, including the chairperson, should be appointed by the Audit Committee and that non-executives should hold the majority of positions.

In order to ensure the robust governance and oversight of the operations of the Audit Office and, at the same time, to preserve the independence of the C&AG as a corporate role, the Committee recommends that the relationship between the strategy board and the C&AG be governed by a code of practice that is to be reviewed every two years.

Moving now to auditing arrangements for local government, in Northern Ireland, there is a separate auditor for local government. However, we know that there is considerable crossover between the functions of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Local Government Auditor, and it was pointed out by the C&AG that that separation has resulted in some significant accountability gaps in reporting arrangements. In order to address those gaps, the Committee recommends that the C&AG become the single auditor for the public sector and has the ability to report to the Assembly and Committees on issues that cut across multiple local councils and deliver reports that cut across central and local government. That is similar to the position that has been adopted in Wales.

I will turn now to the recommendations that are relevant to the Public Services Ombudsman. The Committee considered whether corporatisation was appropriate for the NIPSO. In considering the matter, the Committee noted not only the scale of the organisation but the fact that no other International Ombudsman Institute (IOI) members have a statutory board. Members also reflected the view that was expressed by the president of the International Ombudsman Institute that the current governance arrangements for the NIPSO are entirely consistent with best international practice. They also expressed that the introduction of a strategy board would be inconsistent with the Venice principles, which are the international set of standards for the ombudsman institute.

In summary, there was no support from any witness for corporatisation. The Committee therefore concluded that the creation of a statutory board for the NIPSO would not be appropriate. However, it found that there was scope to strengthen the existing governance and accountability arrangements.

In evidence to the Committee, the ombudsman proposed a wide range of robust actions in order to further improve the governance and accountability arrangements for her office. The Committee recommends that those be progressed without undue delay.

In particular, the Committee welcomes the ombudsman's proposal to undertake a review of the recruitment, operation, membership and skills of our current audit and risk committee. While recognising the important role that the audit and risk committee plays, the Committee is of the view that an advisory panel similar to that adopted in Wales should be established to improve governance and accountability and supplement the work of the audit and risk committee. To protect the ombudsman's corporation sole status, the Committee is of the view that the advisory panel should have no executive powers.

The Northern Ireland Ombudsman's role is unusual in that she is both the investigator and adjudicator of complaints against a councillor who may have failed to comply with the relevant code of conduct. In all other UK jurisdictions, the investigation is undertaken separately from the adjudication and by different bodies. The Committee, therefore, recommends that the adjudication function is removed from the ombudsman and becomes the responsibility of a separate body. In making that recommendation, the Committee wishes that any new arrangements should be as cost-effective as possible.

As I mentioned at the beginning, there is not enough time to cover every recommendation. Hopefully, I have set out the rationale for the most significant recommendations. I ask the House to support the motion.

Mr McHugh: I thank the Deputy Chair of the Audit Committee for his remarks. I welcome the publication of the report on the review of the governance arrangements for the NI Audit Office and the NI Public Services Ombudsman.

The NIAO and NIPSO are two bodies that play key roles in ensuring that we uphold the highest standards of delivery in our public services. Public services need to be managed effectively to ensure the best possible outcomes for those who use them. They also need to be managed in a financially sustainable manner to ensure the best possible value for money for the taxpayer. Improving equality of access to public services should be an ongoing task for any public or local authority. Inefficiencies or flaws in the delivery of public services will always be found. We must have effective systems in place to identify problems and, crucially, to implement reforms where they are needed to improve the delivery of services.

The work of the Audit Office is well known from highly revealing reports on controversial topics such as RHI. That has shown the level of detailed and thorough analysis that goes into the reports. The reports are always of high quality, are challenging and are communicated extremely well. The work of the Audit Office covers many areas of public policy, with recent reports focusing on the planning system, the roll-out of Project Stratum, educational underachievement, and capacity and capability in the Civil Service.

For the past decade, the Audit Office has been expertly led by Kieran Donnelly, the Comptroller and Auditor General. Under his leadership, the Audit Office has robustly scrutinised the work of government Departments. We can all agree that he has not shied away from criticising government policy when it has been shown that it is ineffective or flawed or does not represent value for money. Kieran tá sé ag éirí as anois. Kieran is now in the process of stepping down from his role as C&AG. I wish him well for the future.

The Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman is tasked with ensuring fair and equal access to public services for all citizens. Her most recent report, the 2020-21 report, outlined that the ombudsman's office received 927 complaints from members of the public relating to, among others, health and social care trusts, government Departments and local councils. The current NIPSO is Margaret Kelly, who was appointed to the role in 2020.

While those bodies provide an invaluable service by shining a light on areas where government can do better, it is also important that the bodies themselves are fit for purpose and deliver on their respective remits. It is fundamental that both bodies remain independent of any pressure or political interference.

To be effective, they need to challenge Ministers and Departments. Any review must be cognisant of the need to protect their independence. Sinn Féin broadly welcomes the findings of the report, which has called for some reforms of the NIPSO and the NIAO. Once again, I thank the Audit Committee for producing this very important piece of work.

Mr Allister: I endorse the recommendations in the report. As a member of the Committee, I am familiar with the changes that need to be made. It is particularly important that, for the Audit Office, we move to having an independent board with a statutory function. That will very much add to the credibility of that very important office.

I join other Members in wishing Mr Kieran Donnelly a happy retirement, since it is fast approaching, and I look forward to his successor picking up the reins.

One point in the report that I want to spend a moment on is recommendation 22. We have had this absurd position in Northern Ireland for local government standards, whereby, when a complaint is made against a councillor, the Local Government Commissioner for Standards, under the Office of the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman, both investigates and adjudicates. It is an absurd arrangement, whereby that office both prosecutes and is judge in cause. That is wholly untenable.

When we took evidence some time ago, I asked the office how many cases it had ever lost. Members will not be surprised to hear that the answer was none. The office prosecutes to itself. What chance therefore has a councillor when moved against by an office that has the luxury of not just forming and bringing the prosecution, but deciding the value of it in determining it? It is quite clear, from recommendation 22, that it has long been required that there needs to be a separation of that dual role. There need to be separate roles for investigator and adjudicator. The adjudicator must have the independent status that the present Local Government Commissioner for Standards, under the Office of the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman, cannot have, because she is already the investigator. It might seem so elementary as to be quite shocking that, in 2022, we are only now talking about this. If that reform alone is made, it will be significant and worthwhile. Although, of course, it will take an amendment to the current legislation. In the future, I trust that that will happen so that there might be the semblance and reality of some fairness in the investigative and adjudication processes touching on complaints under local government standards.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: No other Members have indicated that they wish to speak in the debate. I therefore call Mr Irwin to make his winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr Irwin: I thank Members for their contributions to the debate this evening. As we have heard, in order to maintain and enhance confidence in the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman, it is essential that governance and accountability mechanisms for those organisations be robust and be seen to be robust.

In undertaking the review, the Committee recognised the important function of the Audit Office in financial, audit and public reporting, as well as its critical role in governance and counter fraud and the key support that it gives to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the citizens of Northern Ireland. The Committee also recognised the key role that the Public Services Ombudsman plays in promoting good governance and improving accountability in public administration, as well as in providing a remedy in individual complaint cases. In conducting the review, the principle of balancing independence and accountability was therefore foremost in the Committee's thinking. Members were aware of the need to strike the right balance of protecting the vital independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman's corporate role whilst ensuring robust governance and accountability arrangements that align with best practice. Clearly, there is a link between the competence of organisations to carry out their functions effectively and the governance and accountability mechanisms that are in place. The Committee believes that its recommendations will strengthen that competence.

It should be noted that the Audit Committee recommends that its role be extended to align with best practice elsewhere. For example, I mentioned the recommendation that non-executive members of the Audit Office's statutory board be appointed by the Audit Committee. I did not have time to mention that the Committee recommends assuming responsibility for appointing the Comptroller and Auditor General, as accounting officer of the Northern Ireland Audit Office, and for appointing the external auditor of the NIAO. Currently, those responsibilities lie with the Department, and assuming them will bring the Audit Committee's function in line with its peers and provide proper separation from the Department of Finance, which finances the audits by Comptroller and Auditor General.

Two Members spoke in the debate. Mr McHugh said that he wanted public services to see the best possible outcomes from decisions that are made and that those things must be cost-effective. He also wished the Comptroller and Auditor General well in his retirement. In his contribution, Jim Allister said that it was important to move to an independent board. He also wished Mr Donnelly well in his retirement. He noted that it was important to separate the roles of the complainant and the adjudicator. That point was made very clear by Mr Allister.

To conclude, I hope that today's debate has highlighted the importance of robust governance and accountability for organisations that provide such critical support to the public and the Assembly. I ask Members to support the motion.