Official Report: Tuesday 04 November 2014

Ms Ruane: On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. Following the dreadful comments yesterday, I wonder whether the Speaker will look at Standing Order 65 in relation to Mr Gregory Campbell's comments, which were disorderly and disrespectful, and disrespectful to a Minister in the House. He also made a slur on the Irish language.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Speakers met this morning on that matter. A number of complaints were received. I was in the Chair myself, and I took exception to the comments. I asked that the relevant Standing Orders, and indeed the Speaker's advice developed over time, be considered.

I would like to return to the remarks made by Mr Gregory Campbell on 3 November. The Deputy Speakers and I have considered the Hansard report of yesterday's plenary sitting and are unanimous in our opinion that Mr Campbell's comments during Question Time to the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure were well below the standards expected in the Chamber. It is well established that Members are expected to adhere to the standards of courtesy and respect in the Chamber and to avoid bringing the Assembly into disrepute. Yesterday, Mr Campbell's parody of the Irish language during Question Time to the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure fell well short of those standards. The spirit of mockery was blatant and reflects badly on the House.

The Deputy Speakers and I are not prepared to allow such a breach of standards to pass without consequence. Be in no doubt: if humour was in the Member's intention, it failed miserably. Had it been a parody of any other language, there would rightly have been objections from many quarters. In practice, and in the Hansard report, his comments came across as ridiculous and clearly undermined the dignity of the House.

I regret the fact that Mr Campbell is not present. In the absence of an apology, the Deputy Speakers and I are agreed that Mr Campbell will not be called to speak in the Chamber for the rest of the day. That ends the statement. Let us move on.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Before we commence today's business, I wish to inform the House that I have been informed by the Chief Electoral Officer that Mr Alex Maskey has been returned as a Member of the Assembly for the West Belfast constituency to fill the vacancy resulting from the resignation of Ms Sue Ramsey. Mr Maskey signed the Roll of Membership in my presence and that of the Clerk to the Assembly this morning — actually, it was in the presence of Mr Roy Beggs — and entered his designation. Mr Maskey has now taken his seat, and I welcome him back to the Assembly as a Member for the West Belfast constituency.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I wish to also inform the House that I have been informed by the Chief Electoral Officer that Mr Máirtín Ó Muilleoir has been returned as a Member of the Assembly for the South Belfast constituency to fill the vacancy resulting from the resignation of Mr Alex Maskey. Mr Ó Muilleoir signed the Roll of Membership in the presence of Deputy Speaker Roy Beggs and the Clerk to the Assembly this morning and entered his designation. Mr Ó Muilleoir has now taken his seat. I welcome him to the Assembly and wish him every success.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I also inform the House that, following the return of Mr Alex Maskey as a Member for West Belfast, the nominating officer for Sinn Féin has informed me that Mr Maskey has been nominated as Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development. Mr Maskey has accepted the nomination. I am satisfied that the requirements of Standing Orders have been met and therefore confirm that the appointment takes effect from 4 November 2014.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Education): Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Le do chead, a LeasCheann Comhairle, ba mhaith liom ráiteas a dhéanamh ar thuarascáil an ghrúpa chomhairligh aireachta ar chun cinn oideachais iarbhunscoile lán-Ghaeilge. Déanfaidh mé cur síos ar an fhreagra s’agam, ar an tuarascáil agus ar na moltaí a théann léi. With your permission Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the report of the ministerial advisory group on advancing post-primary Irish-medium education. I will outline my response to the report and its recommendations.

Members will recall that I established an advisory group in August 2013, led by Helen Ó Murchú, on the strategic development of Irish-medium post-primary education. I asked the group to focus on the development of practical and deliverable solutions to increasing access to Irish-medium post-primary education and address the challenges facing the future development of sustainable provision.

I asked the group to advise me, too, on building capacity at post-primary level, to complement the strengths of early years and primary provision. The group consulted widely and took time to carry out detailed surveys, including questionnaires for parents at all stages of Irish-medium education, and developed approaches based on engagement with Irish-medium education community and stakeholders.

I thank Helen Ó Murchú and the other experts who comprised the group for their work and for producing a very comprehensive and detailed report. The group included Paul O'Doherty, of the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS); Paul McAlister, of the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI); and Micheál Ó Duibh, of Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta. I extend my thanks also to everyone who engaged with the group for their contributions.

My vision for education is:

A healthy, vibrant Irish-medium education sector is an integral part of my overall vision. In adopting an approach called immersion education, Irish-medium schools seek to deliver a full academic programme through the second language.

The approach provides clear advantages to the learner, including opportunities for bilingualism and bi-literacy; the ability to learn a third or fourth language more easily; more creative thinking and greater sensitivity to communication; raised self-esteem; more secure identity, and broader exposure to, and appreciation of, difference. The proven benefits of Irish-medium education are linked closely to my overall vision for education.

I turn now to why I asked the group to focus on post-primary provision. Irish-medium education continues to expand successfully at preschool and primary levels, with almost 3,600 children attending Irish-medium primary schools and units. Yet, there has been a gap in the strategic development of post-primary provision. In the last school census, that provision consisted of one stand-alone school in Belfast and three units in English-medium schools where the curriculum is delivered all or partially through Irish. There are a total of 830 Irish-medium post-primary pupils. These numbers fall well below the level of actual and potential demand. It is likely, too, that the growth in Irish-medium preschool and primary sectors will lead to a demand for additional post-primary places in the future.

I now need to ensure that the conditions are created that will allow more children the opportunity through Irish-medium post-primary education to be confident, capable, successful and bilingual young adults. In doing so, I commend the work and progress made to date by the existing providers. It has been challenging to establish sustainable provision at post-primary level, and I asked the group for practical solutions. I also asked that it pay due attention to the relevant departmental policies and statutory duties. In line with that, it focused on models of best practice, levels of demand and models for delivery in the short, medium and long term. It also considered optimal geographical locations, implications for financing and the common funding scheme.

Today, I accept the report and am satisfied that it can form the basis of a framework for the delivery of quality Irish-medium post-primary provision that is viable and sustainable. The report contains 33 recommendations, most of which I either accept or accept in principle. I reserve my position on the implementation of a number of them pending further work and clarification where they have been superseded. The recommendations allow for systematic approaches to delivering sustainable post-primary provision. Importantly, though, we need to consider the import of some in more detail, which will not slow the overall implementation.

Tugann ráiteas an lae inniu deis domh a leagan amach as an seasamh atá agam ar na moltaí seo, agus beidh mé ag foilsiú freagra ar gach moladh. Today's statement provides an opportunity for me to set out my position on these recommendations. I am publishing a response to each individual recommendation.

I will now turn to the specific recommendations. Generally, post-primary education is a complex area, and even more so in developing a sector. The report details its recommendations in three key areas: a strategic approach to planning, a pathway for development at post-primary level and constructive solutions to factors that have hindered development. In addressing planning, the report identifies the required elements of a strategic approach for Irish-medium education. It includes 10 recommendations, which include mechanisms for measuring demand; planning authority responsibilities; my Department’s vision; the principles, models, support systems and roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders; and criteria for development proposals and protocols.

Fáiltím roimh an fhócas ar réitigh phraiticiúla inseachadta sa téarma ghearr, sa mheán-téarma agus sa téarma fhada. I welcome the focus on practical and deliverable solutions in the short, medium and long term. I endorse in particular the strategic approach taken to area-based planning for the sector. I support more coherent approaches to deal with current and projected level of demand for Irish-medium post-primary education. The work of the group in relation to the further development of criteria for development proposals and protocols for schools and units can usefully inform the wider area planning process.

There are 11 recommendations to help frame a viable pathway to a sustainable school. The report proposes optimal geographical locations of present and proposed post-primary provision, taking account of the distribution of Irish-medium preschool and primary provision, which, again, it stresses can feed into the wider area planning process. Additional recommendations relate to models and levels of immersion and intake rates, and some relate to named geographical areas.

The report also highlights the importance of support at all the various planning stages, particularly in advance of the first pupil intake. As Minister, I cannot comment on specific areas and potential development proposals. Let me say, however, that collaborative working in the Irish-medium sector, focused on the provision of quality education for all pupils, must form the cornerstone of progress and development.

Is maith liom gur cuireadh bealach ar fáil thart ar roinnt de na ceisteanna a bhí mar chonstaicí ar fhorbairt an oideachais iarbhunscoile trí mheán na Gaeilge ar an léibheal áitiúil agus réigiúnach.

I commend the fact that a pathway has been provided around some of the issues that have hampered the development of this sector at both local and regional level. The report makes 12 recommendations to remove barriers to progress. These relate to teacher supply in the short term and medium to long term; continuing professional development; North/South cooperation; the use of ICT; and current and future funding approaches. The report recommends incentives as a key driver for the development of most of the areas that I have outlined.

I accept the expert advice of the advisory group that I need to create increased access for pupils in the short to medium term as well as planning for the long term. The group recommends a developmental model of provision that moves in the direction of full immersion and stand-alone Irish-medium schools, but the report recognises also that, for some areas, the best means of achieving that goal is to build incrementally. This means establishing units attached to existing schools in the first instance and providing opportunities for more pupils to access their post-primary education through Irish. I am satisfied, though, that the framework and mechanisms will exist more than ever before to facilitate development towards a successful development proposal for a school outside of Belfast. Of course, such a development proposal must meet robust criteria on future demand and sustainability.

The advisory group has articulated practical steps to move towards stand-alone schools over time. I accept the direction of travel that it proposes. This builds a clear pathway incrementally from smaller units housed in high-quality existing schools towards stand-alone provision. The group has balanced this with the need to ensure that the quality of teaching, learning and pupil attainment are not put at risk during this important stage of education. It proposes an incentivised model of moving from different levels of immersion and size in Irish-medium units towards a school. I assure those who would like to move more quickly that my goal includes the development of additional stand-alone schools. I am confident that the report outlines ways in which post-primary education can be developed strategically and working towards additional schools.

I have listened to parents and stakeholders first-hand, and I have considered the report. I believe that the best way of responding to the educational needs of the children and to the commitment of their parents is by focusing on the practical and deliverable solutions outlined in the report. Those solutions take careful account of the need to sustain high-level pupil achievement while capacity is being developed across the sector.

I endorse the report’s vision and its alignment to my broader vision for education. I am optimistic that there will be immediate benefits and tangible progress for the sector. I am satisfied with the clear and constructive articulation of the models and support systems that I can put in place to encourage and facilitate Irish-medium education in line with my statutory duty and as a valuable part of the education system. In line with the recommendations, my Department will facilitate a separate voluntary coalition of Irish-medium post-primary providers along the lines of the current area learning communities. I also point to the recent review of the common funding scheme, which has helped to address any historical underfunding of the Irish-medium post-primary sector. Its funding needs are being much more fully addressed through the average weighted pupil unit uplift in the common funding formula.

In the short and medium term, the report stresses the importance of engagement with the Irish-medium sector. I accept the recommendation to develop a top-down and bottom-up implementation structure. I accept the common-sense approach of developing supporting communication strategies to ensure parental confidence and improve enrolment trends via higher transfer rates.

Tá dualgas reachtúil ar an Roinn s’agam leis an Ghaeloideachas a spreagadh agus a éascadh, agus tá sin le feiceáil san fhís atá agam don oideachas. Go deimhin, is cuid lárnach den fhís sin é. The statutory duty of my Department to encourage and facilitate Irish-medium education is reflected in, and is an integral part of, my vision for education. I understand, respect and applaud the commitment of parents, children and the wider Irish-language community to Irish-medium schools. I accept the advisory group’s vision of Irish-medium education and welcome its endorsement of and alignment to my broader vision for education. It will help the ongoing development of Irish-medium education as a valuable part of the overall education system.

Is é an toradh air sin go bhfuil an bonn ann anois le bealach praiticiúil le soláthar iarbhunscoile inmharthana ard-chaighdeáin a chruthú a chuirfeas leis na sochair shuntasacha oideachais atá le fáil cheana féin ó oideachas trí mheán na Gaeilge. The result is that there is now the basis of a practical pathway to creating high-quality sustainable post-primary provision that enhances the significant education benefits that are already provided through Irish-medium education.

Miss M McIlveen (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): Obviously, this is the first that Members have seen of this report and its recommendations. The Committee will obviously want to take some time to study it.

I suppose that what really surprised me about this is the context within which we are currently working. First, according to the recently published primary-school area plans, there are in the region of 500 vacant Irish-medium education (IME) school places in Belfast alone. That roughly equates to around one third of the total IME primary-school provision in the Belfast Board area.

Secondly, the Department also recently advised the Committee that the permanent secretary initiated the ministerial-direction mechanism as a consequence of concerns in respect of additional funding for transportation for an Irish-medium post-primary school.

Thirdly, I understand that, according to the fourth monitoring report of the assessment of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, although the overall initial teacher-education intake has been reduced by 32% since 2005-06, intake for the IME sector has increased by 109% since 2007-08. That is despite there being only one outstanding permanent teaching post to be filled in the whole of the IME sector in November 2013. Therefore, that is 46 IME teacher-training places and almost no posts available in the Irish-medium sector.

My question is why? Why, given the current budgetary constraints, will the Minister waste yet more money and time on providing school places that are not used and training teachers that are not required for the Irish-medium sector? Would he not be better redirecting what limited resources there are to the existing education system?

Mr O'Dowd: First and foremost, Irish-medium education is part of our existing education system and will continue to be part of it as we move forward. It is not one or the other.

I assume that the figures that the Member quotes refer to primary-school places. The fact remains that in Belfast, there is only one stand-alone post-primary Irish-medium provider. This is despite the fact that there is significant growth in both nursery and primary-school Irish-medium provision. We also have to look beyond Belfast. This is the focus of this report. While I welcome the work that has been carried out and the determination of the board of governors, staff, parents and pupils of Coláiste Feirste to develop and build their school over many, many years, we need to look beyond Belfast. The primary objective of my bringing forward the Irish-medium post-primary review was to see how we could develop sustainable post-primary provision outside Belfast. I believe that the report allows us to do that.

The report also reflects on teacher training. We will have discussions with Minister Farry in that regard. There is clearly still a deficit in the number of qualified teachers that are available to the Irish-medium sector, particularly in the post-primary sector, to carry forward this programme. The report covers all of those elements.

The Chairperson of the Committee refers to the fact that quite obviously the Committee will want time to study the report. My officials and I will be available to engage with the Committee on this matter. There is a statutory duty on my Department to develop Irish-medium education. To do that, we have to move forward with post-primary provision. I believe that this report gives us a firm basis on which to do so.

Mr Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire, agus cuirim fáilte roimh an ráiteas seo. Does the Minister believe that the Irish-medium sector will continue to grow and flourish across all communities despite the bigotry and racism of some people towards the Irish language and those who use it?

Mr O'Dowd: There has clearly been resistance from some quarters in this Chamber and elsewhere to the growth of the Irish-medium sector. At times, it was institutionalised discrimination. That has now been removed, both through legislation and the practices and policies of previous Education Ministers and me. It has to be obvious now to everyone that Irish-medium education is here to stay. It is not an add-on to education, to my Department or to our broader society: it is an integral part of our education system. We should be proud of that, and we should recognise the benefits that it will have for our children, our society and our economy. It is quite interesting, given the events of the last 24 hours in the Chamber, to look at the benefits of immersion and Irish-medium education. I read them out during my statement. They include more creative thinking and greater sensitivity to communication, and broader exposure to, and appreciation of, difference. Many people in the Chamber could learn from that.

Mr Rogers: Thanks to the Minister for his statement. Minister, you talked about the strategic approach to area-based planning. That, no doubt, will be a major challenge for us as we move ahead. Do you agree with me that the vision for Irish-medium education, particularly post-primary education, would more easily be achieved by having a legislated seat on the Education Authority for the Irish-medium sector?

Mr O'Dowd: I would welcome an agreement among the parties in relation to seats on the Education Authority, including one for the Irish-medium sector. However, nobody should be under any allusions: whether or not there is a seat for the Irish-medium sector, or the integrated sector, on the new authority, the duty placed on my Department by legislation will apply to that authority as well. There is no doubt about that. I understand that discussions are going on between particular parties in relation to a possible amendment or amendments, but I would welcome a resolution to that matter. The potential and momentum that we have behind the new Education Authority may be diminished if we start excluding people from it.

Mr Kinahan: Minister, I thank you for the report. Like many, I was embarrassed by what happened on 'The Nolan Show' this morning, but I also found the comments referring to bigotry and racism unhelpful. We need to find a way to stop politicising the Irish language.

I note the report, but what really comes to mind is the question about the cost of the strategy. The strategy is very comprehensive, but there are no actions. How does he see the cost coming in? When you look at that cost, where does it fit in to preparing pupils for jobs when we need more money for STEM and getting pupils to their jobs, or on learning Mandarin and other languages? How does he see that fitting in with the priorities? What is the cost of the strategy?

Mr O'Dowd: I am not sure that "strategy" is exactly the right term. What we have is a plan for the way forward as to how we provide and meet the demand for post-primary Irish-medium education. The report and its terms of reference refer to the constrained financial times in which we are all working. Everyone recognises that, but it is not a reason to do nothing. We have to act. There is clearly a demand for post-primary provision in the Irish-medium sector. I acknowledge the constrained financial times that I am working in, but that is not a reason to do nothing. We have to move forward in a planned way, and the report allows us to do that.

In regards to how it fits in with our broader strategy in relation to STEM and the economy, let me again refer to the benefits of immersion in bilingualism. One is the ability to learn a third or fourth language more easily; that is a recognised fact. Another is raised self-esteem. Which employer does not want to employ a young person or adult with raised self-esteem? Another benefit is the broader exposure to, and appreciation of, difference. That is a great characteristic in anyone.

The benefits to the economy have been referred to in a number of reports, particularly in relation to the Gaeltacht Quarter being developed in west Belfast. There are economic benefits to the Irish language as well; it can and does bring economic rewards to our society. We need to build on that.

Mr Lunn: For those of us who do not have a natural affinity for the Irish language but who totally respect the right of parents to have their children educated in that particular medium, this is a very welcome report. It sets out the way forward, I think, if it is feasible and affordable.

It says to me that roughly 2,800 pupils are denied the opportunity to move into secondary level Irish-medium education and, in the terms used in the report, to achieve their full potential by becoming fluent in two languages and perhaps more. Does that not point to the fact that the needs model that the Department uses is in need of amendment once again, because, as Judge Treacy identified, it needs to take into account the anticipated demand for secondary places in the Irish-medium and integrated sectors?

Mr O'Dowd: You and I are going to have a debate again on the interpretation of Judge Treacy's ruling on the integrated sector and the needs model.

I am satisfied that both the judgement and my Department's working of the needs model are lawful, practical and allow for the identification of the growth in the Irish-medium sector and the integrated sector. If you follow the argument through, you see that the needs model has identified that there is a need for further provision of post-primary Irish-medium education across the North. This report outlines the practical steps for developing sustainable post-primary provision. So, I do not think that it is a case of one or the other.

When I first launched this report, you asked whether I would consider producing a similar report into the integrated sector. I think that the time is now right to produce a similar report into the integrated sector, and I will take that forward in the time ahead.

Mr Craig: Minister, like others in this room, we are concerned about the cost of rolling out this strategy. Have you any idea of what the cost will be?

Is there any commitment from the Minister to put a working group together on different languages, such as Cobalt, Java and Linux etc, which are programming languages? I listened to representatives of concerned industries this morning talk about that issue, and there will be 22,000 job opportunities in that sector over the next three years, yet there is no strategy whatsoever in education to deal with that.

Mr O'Dowd: When I am asked for my genuine point of view on costs, I fully accept that we have to take them into consideration. Again, I ask Members to look at my terms of reference. Throughout the report, there is reference to the fact that we are working in constrained financial times and that we have to take those matters into account as we plan forward.

This report lays the foundations for development proposals to come forward, and it is a worthy reference document for anyone who is preparing a development proposal for the provision of additional Irish-medium education. Through the development proposal process, we will interrogate very closely financial costs, sustainability, enrolment trends and all the things that would happen on any other occasion. So, we are not ignoring that, but, as I emphasised to other people, it is not a case of doing nothing because we are in constrained financial times. We are going to act on this; we have to develop the provision, and we will.

The Member referred to computer coding as languages. There is a STEM strategy on that. That STEM strategy is well promoted, both in my Department and Minister Farry's Department, and it is central in the Programme for Government. I have had detailed engagements with various sectors, including the ICT sector, on how we improve knowledge, both in primary and post-primary schools, of computer science and computer coding etc. So, it is not a case of one or the other. We are conducting a wide range of strategies through the Department of Education and other Departments, and those strategies will include post-primary Irish-medium provision.

Mr Hazzard: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I want to follow up on comments that have been made, and I offer my congratulations to those who have worked on this very comprehensive report. Will the Minister confirm whether the report now paves the way for stand-alone Irish-medium post-primary schools? Indeed, is there now the potential to bring together various Celtic nations for the promotion of education in their native language?

Mr O'Dowd: The answer to both questions is yes. Let me give you more detail. The report will allow for the provision of stand-alone Irish-medium units. In recent years, a number of well-intentioned development proposals have come forward from highly motivated people in the Irish-medium sector. However, when those proposals were scrutinised against all the policies in my Department for sustainability of numbers, educational outcomes for young people and finance, they did not stack up. I encourage anyone who is bringing forward a development proposal to refer to this document and ensure that the points raised in it are covered. It most certainly allows for the provision of stand-alone schools as we move forward. That is a goal that we wish to reach.

The report refers to the experience of the Celtic nations in the provision of immersion education, and that is one of its recommendations. Interestingly, it refers to using the office of the British-Irish Council to organise conferences on sharing experiences of immersion in native languages. That is a very interesting and worthwhile recommendation, and perhaps it might remove the political fixation that some people may have about the Irish language and open it up to a broader audience.

Mr Newton: I thank the Minister for his statement. I refer to the part of the statement dealing with a strategic approach to planning. He will be aware of the work being done by the Committee on area-based planning and that, in the past, area-based planning has let down schools, pupils and parents. The Minister said:

What he did not indicate was that it will be a holistic approach to area-based planning. He will be aware that Professor Knox, when giving evidence to the Committee, described area-based planning, as it stands, as nothing more than a "cut-and-paste exercise".

Mr O'Dowd: The Member states that area planning has let down parents and pupils. I argue that the absence of area planning has let down parents and pupils over many, many years. It appears that there are some in the Chamber who want an area-planning process that does not involve decisions. Let us have a mechanism whereby everybody sits around a table and maps out what they would like an area to look like, but, for heaven's sake, do not make a decision, because, if you make a decision, you have to stand over it and work out its implications. That is where some Members have their head in relation to area planning.

Over the last number of days, I have listened to talk of budgets. I heard many commentators in the Chamber tell me that I have to restructure education and that there will have to be more school closures and a greater number of schools amalgamating. How does the Member propose that I do that if not through the area-planning process? How does the Member suggest that we move forward to meet the very tight budget that I have if not through an area-planning process that makes decisions? That is what has let down communities, parents and pupils for many, many years. We had a process in place that did not make decisions. As a Minister, I am prepared to make decisions, even if they are unpopular and difficult at times. If, after looking at all the evidence and information, I can stand over it, I will make the decision to close a school, amalgamate a school or keep a school open. I will make those decisions.

Mr Ó hOisín: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an ráiteas sin. Tá a fhios ag an Aire go bhfuil suim mhór agam san ábhar seo agus nach bhfuil sé ábalta rud ar bith a rá faoin fhorbairt áitiúil.

I thank the Minister for his statement. I know that he cannot comment on individual development proposals, but he will know of my interest in Irish language development and Irish language education in rural County Derry and that there have been quite advanced development proposals in that field. Can he give any indication of when those development proposals might come forward and be delivered on?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member is correct when he states that I cannot comment on an individual development proposal when we are in the process of making a decision on it. A development proposal was published on 24 June by the Western Board on the provision of a post-primary Irish-medium school in the Dungiven area. It is now with my departmental officials, who are sifting through the evidence gathered as part of that development proposal process. They will make a report to me in due course. I hope to be in a position to make a decision as quickly as possible. There are a number of complex and detailed development proposals in my Department that require significant work to be carried out to bring them to a conclusion. However, I can assure the Member that I will make a decision on the matter as quickly as possible.

Mr D Bradley: Go raibh míle maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a ráitis. Gabhaim buíochas fosta le Helen Ó Murchú agus a comhghleachaithe a d’ullmhaigh an tuairisc. Ba mhaith liom ceist a chur ar an Aire faoi alt 4.3.4 de fhreagra na Roinne ar an tuairisc. Sé sin faoin chur chuige maoinithe, go háirithe na nithe a eascraíonn as breithiúnas an Bhreithimh Uí Threasaigh agus an neamhfhorbairt agus an neamh-mhaoiniú a luaitear i dtuairisc Salisbury. Sé an cheist atá agam: cad é go díreach atá a dhéanamh ag an Aire le riar ar na heasnaimh sin?

I thank the Minister for his statement. I also thank Helen Ó Murchú and her colleagues, who prepared the report. My question to the Minister is around the Department's response to paragraph 4.3.4 of the report, which deals with funding issues and other issues, such as those arising from the Treacy judgement and the underdevelopment and underfunding of Irish-medium education, as mentioned in the Salisbury report. What exactly is the Minister doing to respond to those issues?

Mr O'Dowd: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chomhalta as a cheist. I acknowledge the Member's acknowledgement of the work of Helen Ó Murchú. I wish to, once again, place on the record my thanks and gratitude to them all for the work that they carried out. I have dealt with the funding of the Irish-medium sector as part of the common funding formula. Funding to the Irish-medium sector, particularly post-primary provision, has increased significantly, rising from somewhere in the region of £28 extra per pupil to somewhere in the region of £400 per pupil additional. Therefore, I think that I have dealt with that matter quite robustly. There are other issues in the report to do with funding mechanisms, and progression of funding mechanisms, that require more detailed scrutiny and examination. As I said, that will not stymie the recommendations of the report moving forward. I will deal with them in due course.

Mrs Overend: I welcome the opportunity to question the Education Minister on the report, although the time that we had before coming to the House this morning was not really enough to digest it in full. I, like others, would like to hear some costings of the proposals. Can the Minister outline something basic? What is the funding per pupil that will be provided at an Irish language post-primary school compared with what is provided to children at other schools? If this is their native language, the amount should be the same and the education outcomes should be comparable.

Mr O'Dowd: Each development proposal will carry its own financial cost and will be scrutinised individually. No school will be able to open or progress without going through the normal procedure of a development proposal. All those issues and questions around cost etc will be dealt with.

The cost per pupil at a post-primary Irish-medium school is based on the needs and requirements of each individual pupil, but the element in relation to the common funding formula that refers to provision for Irish medium means that each child will receive an additional £400. That was set out in the common funding formula, which was debated at length in the Chamber and elsewhere over a very long period, and is public knowledge since I made my decision on the common funding formula back in, I think, January 2014.

Mr McCausland: The document that was produced — the report itself and then the response from the Minister and the Department — is primarily about language. I notice that the document also refers to culture, and I was interested in the use of the word "identity" and in the use of the word "racism" by Pat Sheehan. It is clear that Sinn Féin sees this as a linguistic, cultural and ethnic issue. That is interesting because the Minister then referred to a political fixation with the Irish language. If that is the case and there is a fixation about the Irish language, many would hold the view that Sinn Féin has contributed to that fixation. Thirty years ago, they set out their position on the Irish language in an official Sinn Féin publication, in which they said that every word spoken in Irish was another bullet in the freedom struggle. Does the Minister agree with that statement?

Mr O'Dowd: I am here to be questioned on the Irish-medium post-primary education report. I will answer questions on that.

There has been a political fixation in the opposition to and discrimination against the Irish language. That is fact. You cannot then turn around and challenge those who opposed the inbuilt discrimination in Government against Irish-medium education and accuse them of politicising the language.

Let me put this on the record for you, and you can question me on this one: the Irish language does not belong to Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the Alliance Party, the DUP, the UUP, the Green Party, UKIP, independents, anyone else I have left out in the Chamber or any other political movement or party out there. The Member opposite is quite interested in his history, or his version of history. I am sure that he is aware that, if it was not for Presbyterians in Belfast, there would be no Irish language in Belfast.

Ms Maeve McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for what I think is a genuine attempt to develop the Irish-medium sector outside Belfast. I welcome that approach.

I know that the Minister cannot deal with individual proposals, but I want to test it a bit. One of the recommendations is about opportunities in Derry city and, particularly, in initiating a process of consultation around the present host options. Will the Minister outline proposals, how that could be advanced or state what his advice is?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member will be aware that there have been several attempts to establish Irish-medium post-primary provision in Derry city. Unfortunately, they have not been successful, despite the best efforts of many Irish language activists, teachers, parents and, indeed, the pupils involved. They faced significant challenges and were not able to succeed. That is one of the reasons why I wanted to bring forward the report. I wanted to ensure that any future proposal would have a stable platform and would learn from the mistakes and opportunities of the past.

I encourage anyone in Derry city who is interested in bringing forward a proposal to study the document very carefully and bring forward a development proposal based on the recommendations in the report. It will then go through the normal development proposal process, and we will decide whether it is sustainable.

Ms McCorley: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire, agus cuirim fáilte fosta roimh a ráiteas ar maidin. Mar is eol don Aire, tá tacaíocht mhór ag an Ghaeilge i mBéal Feirste thiar, áit a bhfuil meas agus luach uirthi fosta. Mar sin de, an dtiocfadh liom iarraidh ar an Aire an gcreideann sé go mbeidh rath ann mar thoradh ar an athbhreitheamh seo? As the Minister knows, there is huge support in west Belfast for the Irish language. There is also huge respect and value placed on it. Therefore, does the Minister believe that there will be continued success in Gaeloideachas in west Belfast as a result of the review?

Mr O'Dowd: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chomhalta as a ceist. I believe that, without doubt. I place on record my appreciation and acknowledgement of the many, many years of hard work of the Irish language community in west Belfast to establish a post-primary school, Coláiste Feirste, in the first instance, and the work and commitment that has been shown over many, many years to keep that school moving forward and to have a successful stand-alone school, despite all the barriers that it faced. In the early stages, many of those barriers were placed in front of them by government and others, but they have moved forward and established themselves as a leading, full-immersion Irish-medium school. They deserve credit for that.

I have no doubt that there will be further growth in west Belfast, and indeed across Belfast, in the Irish language. It has been attractive to many communities down through the years, and, as I said to another Member, without the involvement of the Presbyterian Church, a number of centuries ago, there would be no Irish language movement in Belfast. The history of it needs to be understood by all.

The main focus of this report was to develop a successful Irish-medium post-provision outside Belfast, but its recommendations are relevant to Belfast city and the further development and success of Irish-medium provision in west Belfast and, indeed, across the city of Belfast.

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

I am delighted to address the House on what is a very important issue for working parents in Northern Ireland. The First Minister and deputy First Minister laid a legislative consent memorandum before the Assembly on 23 June, which sought the support for a legislative consent motion to extend the provisions of the Westminster Childcare Payments Bill to Northern Ireland and to make the operation of the legislation an excepted matter. The legislative consent motion was formally referred to the OFMDFM Committee for consideration and to enable it to make a report to the Assembly. The Committee's report was published on 1 October. I welcome the Committee's decision to support the legislative consent motion. However, the Committee included a specific recommendation in its report, and I want to return to that shortly.

The Childcare Payments Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 5 June 2014. The Bill completed its Committee Stage last week and will now return to the Floor of the Commons for its Report Stage. It is worth reminding Members that the deadline for securing Assembly approval to the legislative consent motion is the last day for the tabling of amendments for Report Stage in the Commons. Report Stage is expected to take place shortly.

Many parents, today, want or indeed need to work. However, finding reliable, quality, affordable childcare is a major concern for working families. I am fully aware of the pressures that there are on family budgets and of the demands that make it hard for parents to decide whether to stay at home or go to work. That decision is very much a personal one, but parents should not be deterred from returning to work by the high cost of childcare.

Members will be aware that the current Programme for Government commits the Executive to publish and implement a childcare strategy to provide integrated and affordable childcare. In September 2013, we launched the first phase of the Bright Start childcare strategy. That phase sets out the strategic direction for the strategy, along with 15 key first actions, some of which are aimed at improving the availability of childcare and building up capacity in the childcare market.

It is worth saying that, in March, we launched a school-age childcare grant scheme to increase the supply of childcare places. The first call for applications resulted in 50 successful applications, representing funding of £1·9 million over a three-year period. That will create 326 new childcare places and sustain around 1,160 existing places. In addition, there are a number of projects being supported under the strategic investment fund, which will increase childcare capacity across the investment zones.

With regard to the affordability of childcare, we said in the Bright Start strategic framework that we would keep a watching brief on the coalition Government's plans to introduce a new tax-free childcare scheme targeted at working families. The Childcare Payments Bill provides the statutory basis for the introduction of tax-free childcare. It will be a new targeted system of support to help working families with the cost of registered childcare and will particularly help parents who wish to take up paid work or increase their working hours.

In essence, tax-free childcare will offer working families 20% support towards their childcare costs. That is the equivalent of basic rate tax relief. Support will be available to children under the age of 12, whose childcare costs are often the highest. Parents of children with disabilities will continue to be eligible for tax-free childcare until their child is 17 years old, in recognition of the fact that childcare costs for that group can remain high in later years.

To be eligible for tax-free childcare, both parents, or a lone parent, must be in paid work, employed or self-employed, and both must meet a minimum income level. It is worth emphasising that working families on lower incomes already receive more generous support towards their childcare costs through the childcare element of working tax credit. As household income increases, support from tax credits is gradually tapered away, meaning that parents could be better off claiming tax-free childcare. However, they cannot claim both.

So, how will tax-free childcare work? Central to the delivery of the new scheme will be childcare accounts. It is a bit like a bank account, but government will top up any money that parents put into that account. Eligible parents will be able to open a childcare account online, pay money towards their childcare costs into that account and have payments automatically topped up by government. Government top-up payments will be at a rate of £2·00 for every £8·00 that the family pays in, subject to a maximum of £2,000 government support per child per year. So, to be clear, that means that the actual amount of the government top-up payment that parents will receive is entirely dependent on how much money they pay into that account.

Parents will then allocate that money to the childcare provider or providers of their choice, with the account provider making the payment direct to the childcare provider.

It is worth emphasising that multiple people or parties will be able to pay into those childcare accounts. That will enable all parents to make contributions, as well as giving other family members, or parents' employers, the opportunity to contribute. Parents will be able to withdraw money from their childcare account should they wish to do so, with their contributions returned to them and the Government's top-ups returned to Government.

Tax-free childcare will operate through quarterly entitlement periods. That means that parents will not be required to report changes to their personal circumstances in real time. Once eligible, parents will be entitled to support for three months regardless of any changes in personal circumstances that they may experience. Parents will be required to reconfirm eligibility at the end of the three-month entitlement period.

As I mentioned earlier, childcare accounts will be central to the delivery of the new scheme. Her Majesty's Treasury has appointed National Savings and Investments, an executive agency of Her Majesty's Treasury, as the scheme's account provider. Having a single provider will mean that parents will not need to choose between, negotiate with or pay fees to account providers. Instead, they will engage with government as a single point of contact to register for tax-free childcare, make payments into their account and arrange payments to their childcare providers. Subject to the Childcare Payments Bill receiving Royal Assent, the new tax-free childcare scheme is expected to become available from autumn 2015.

Members may wish to note that there has been a legal challenge from some current childcare voucher providers concerning the decision to appoint National Savings and Investments as the account provider for tax-free childcare. I understand that the coalition Government are still working to their original timetable, but clearly implementation is subject to legal proceedings and the timetable that that dictates.

When tax-free childcare is introduced, the current employer-supported childcare scheme will be closed to new entrants. The coalition Government announced their decision to remove the tax exemption and national insurance contributions disregard associated with employer-supported childcare in the Budget of 2013. As the current scheme is funded through tax and national insurance contribution reliefs, the scheme, therefore, is an excepted matter. As a consequence, the Assembly has no authority over the coalition Government's decision to phase out the scheme. However, I wish to make it clear that those parents who are already in employer-supported childcare will be able to stay in the scheme for as long as they remain with the same employer and the employer continues to offer the scheme. It is expected that employers intend to carry on offering childcare vouchers to existing staff once the exemption is closed to new claims.

It is important that parents make good choices about the right childcare funding for them. Alongside wider guidance and information, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs will provide an easy-to-use online tool for parents choosing between different Government schemes. Parents will be able to enter details about their personal circumstances and quickly see what support they may be entitled to and how much they can get. Members will wish to note that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs has already published the first tranche of draft guidance for using the tax-free childcare scheme, well ahead of its introduction. The introduction of tax-free childcare will extend financial support to working parents on a fairer, more equal basis than the current employer-supported childcare scheme. The new scheme, like the current scheme, will be fully funded by the Treasury. Those who favour the current arrangements should bear in mind that access to that scheme is totally reliant upon employers participating.

It is estimated that around 11,000 parents in Northern Ireland are in receipt of childcare vouchers. In contrast, tax-free childcare will be available to all working families, provided, of course, that they meet the eligibility criteria, and not just to those whose employers participate in the employer-supported childcare scheme. It will also be open to parents who are self-employed. That means that self-employed parents and those working for employers who did not offer the employer-supported childcare will have access to childcare support for the first time. As such, tax-free childcare will be open to more families than the current scheme is. There are, for example, 116,000 self-employed people in Northern Ireland, which is 5,000 more than in 2011. That is a significant and growing section of our workforce. The self-employed were ineligible under the employer-supported childcare scheme but are eligible under tax-free childcare.

I said that I would return to the recommendation in the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister's report of 1 October. For the benefit of Members who may not have seen the report, the Committee strongly recommends that OFMDFM seek to identify the categories of people who may be disadvantaged under the new tax-free childcare scheme and, where appropriate, ensure that their needs are addressed in the wider childcare strategy. Some families will receive less support in the new scheme than in employer-supported childcare, specifically because the new scheme is more fairly targeted. However, as I indicated, those families will not lose out, because they will be able to continue in their existing scheme. Parents who currently benefit under employer-supported childcare and who prefer to remain in that scheme can continue to do so after the introduction of tax-free childcare. The new tax-free childcare scheme will offer support based on the number of children as opposed to the number of qualifying parents. So, it will be much fairer than employer-supported childcare, in which lone parents can receive half the level of support of couples.

The current system will be closed to new entrants only. Therefore, any potential disadvantage will arise only after the introduction of tax-free childcare, when some parents may compare the two schemes and find that employer-supported childcare would have offered a higher level of support had it still been available to them. Employers For Childcare has called on OFMDFM to develop a separate funding scheme for employees whose employers participate in the employer-supported childcare scheme and who will not be able to access the scheme after it is closed to new entrants.

We wish to avoid creating a complex and unfair two-tiered system, with those who would have qualified for employer-supported childcare receiving a different level of support. Nevertheless, in recognition of the Committee's recommendation, OFMDFM will seek to estimate the numbers likely to be affected and the scale of the disadvantage. Any findings will inform the ongoing development of the Bright Start childcare strategy. Work to develop the full, final Bright Start childcare strategy is under way. Officials are engaging with the main childcare stakeholders to develop a consultation document that includes firm policy proposals for childcare.

It is intended to launch consultation on the childcare strategy by the end of 2014, with the aim of developing a draft final strategy for publication in 2015. I appreciate that the Assembly would normally look at legislation and legislative competence in that area. However, I hope that Members agree that we are right to go ahead with this legislative consent motion on this occasion. If we agree the legislative consent motion, working parents will be able to claim support from government with their childcare costs in the same way as those who live in England, Scotland and Wales. I therefore commend the motion to the House.

Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister): I will inform the House of the consideration which the Committee has given to the provisions of this legislative consent motion. We have considered it in some detail during this session.

I am pleased to see that both junior Ministers are contributing to the debate, and, while the Committee was undoubtedly frustrated and disappointed that it was not informed during the consultation and policy development stage of the proposals, I want to place on record the Committee’s thanks both to officials who made themselves available over a number of weeks and to the junior Ministers, not least for the informal meeting that they agreed to, at short notice, with members of the Committee to discuss a number of issues and concerns as we felt we were coming up to the wire on our decision.

Junior Minister Bell has outlined the purpose of the legislative consent motion and the effect of the legislation, so I do not intend to go over that ground. However, I want give Members who were not in Committee a flavour of the issues that members considered in their scrutiny of the legislation and the background to the Committee’s decision to support the legislative consent motion (LCM). I state at the outset that the decision was not taken lightly by the Committee. The Committee recognised that a number of parents, such as the self-employed, who are currently not eligible for any childcare support from government, will benefit from the new scheme. However, members were also concerned that there may be parents who now find that they will be worse off under the new arrangements, not least because it only benefits parents with children up to the age of 12.

The Committee first received notice from OFMDFM about the Childcare Payments Bill and the subsequent need for a legislative consent motion on 25 June. It was only during the following briefing with officials on 2 July that members learned that HM Treasury had conducted a consultation on the policy proposals in the autumn of 2013, and that OFMDFM had coordinated a response to that consultation on behalf of other Departments. The Department also wrote to local stakeholders and asked them to respond directly to the Treasury’s consultation; however, the Committee was not notified at that time.

Undoubtedly the Committee’s opportunity to consider and scrutinise the provisions of the Childcare Payments Bill would have been enhanced had it been informed about the proposed policy changes at that stage. As Chair of the Committee, I put on record that this, unfortunately, is not the first time that the Committee has been ignored. It is not the first time that the Committee has been overlooked and not the first time that the Committee has not been given its place. I believe that statutory Committees are a critical element in the design of the devolved institutions, which were, after all, endorsed by the people in referendum in 1998.

On 25 June, the Committee agreed to a request from Employers For Childcare to brief members on the Bill and the potential implications for working parents in Northern Ireland. During that briefing, on 2 July, its representatives raised a number of concerns, including: the potential impact for parents employed through zero-hours contracts; the potential impact for families where one parent becomes unemployed during an eligible period; concerns about those in full-time training; the impact of welfare reform changes; and concerns that a "qualifying child" will be a child under the age of 12, when currently provision is made for children significantly older.

Following the evidence sessions, the Committee agreed to forward the Employers For Childcare paper to the Committee for Employment and Learning for its information. In September, the Committee received a response from the Department for Employment and Learning, indicating that the proposed approach would complement its existing provision, which offers financial assistance towards the cost of childcare incurred by certain eligible participants while on one its programmes.

Over the summer months the Committee also received a response from OFMDFM in relation to the issues raised by Employers For Childcare, and in early September the Department provided its response to the Treasury consultation and a list of stakeholders that it had notified of the consultation. That correspondence is available, along with other information and correspondence considered during the Committee’s deliberations, on the Committee’s web pages on the Assembly's website.

During a briefing on 17 September members questioned officials about how the needs of those parents who may be disadvantaged under the new scheme could be addressed. Officials advised that options in that regard would be considered in the development of the Department’s full childcare strategy, as Minister Bell informed us.

The Committee then agreed to seek an urgent meeting with Ministers regarding members’ ongoing concerns about the impact of the Childcare Payments Bill, and also to find out whether any further thinking had been given to additional protections that may be put in place in a wider childcare strategy for those who may be disadvantaged by the new scheme. That meeting took place on Monday 29 September, when a delegation from the Committee met junior Minister Bell and junior Minister McCann. Again, I place on record my thanks on behalf of the Committee to the junior Ministers for making themselves available at short notice. I think that it is a sign to those both inside and outside this place of how seriously we take matters relating to the support of families.

During the meeting the junior Ministers confirmed that it was unfortunately not possible at that time to quantify how many will benefit from or be disadvantaged by the new scheme. However, it was highlighted by the junior Ministers that all entrants to the new scheme will be on an equal footing with regard to tax relief for childcare, whereas one of the groups that are better off in the current scheme is those in the higher tax bracket. The junior Ministers also advised that figures regarding the number of parents with children aged 12 to 16 who are receiving childcare vouchers through the current scheme are not available. There was, however, an acceptance that that age group will need to be specifically considered in the wider childcare strategy.

On Wednesday 1 October the Committee considered further correspondence from the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) and the CBI, having previously also considered correspondence from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Again, had the Committee been made aware of the policy proposals at an earlier stage, engagement with a wider range of stakeholders could have taken place.

In reaching its final decision on the LCM, the Committee recognised that, should the provisions in the Childcare Payments Bill not be extended to Northern Ireland, families will lose out on support with childcare costs when the current scheme closes to new entrants. In addition, a number of parents who had been excluded from previous schemes, such as the self-employed, will now be able to take advantage of relief for childcare costs.

The Committee therefore agreed at its meeting on 1 October to support the legislative consent motion to extend the provisions of the Childcare Payments Bill to Northern Ireland. However, in so doing the Committee strongly recommends that the Department undertake a scoping exercise to identify the categories of people who will be disadvantaged under the new scheme and, where appropriate, ensure that their needs are addressed in the wider childcare strategy.

On that point, I pause to acknowledge junior Minister Bell and his words towards the end of his speech when he recognised the potential disadvantage for new entrants who will not be able to access the current voucher scheme when it closes in the autumn of next year as scheduled. I accept and acknowledge Minister Bell's commitment to a scoping exercise in the broader childcare strategy.

The Committee is due to receive a briefing from officials on the final childcare strategy at its meeting tomorrow, and that is an area that Members will undoubtedly follow up on during the evidence session. However, notwithstanding that, I invite junior Minister McCann in her closing remarks to outline whether there are any further plans that she can detail, such as how the scoping exercise will be undertaken in practice.

At this point, I would like to make some remarks as a Member of the Assembly.
Mention has been made of Employers For Childcare, which is a very vigorous member of the third sector, a sector that has so much to offer our economy. The group vigorously campaigned for a dual approach, and now that we hear that such an approach will not go forward unless the scoping exercise recommends it, the emphasis has been switched to an awareness campaign to increase the uptake by families that are entitled to financial assistance with childcare costs.

The group conducted a survey, to which 4,500 parents responded. Of those, 63% said that they struggled at some point during 2013 to meet childcare costs; 46% reduced their working hours or left work altogether as a direct result of the cost of childcare; and 49% were unsure whether they were claiming all the financial support that they were entitled to. That is the basis on which the group called for an awareness campaign. It points out how successful the Social Security Agency's Make the Call campaign has been in raising awareness of entitlement to pension credit and to attendance allowance. Again, I invite the junior Minister, in her response, to give us her thoughts on that.

The Federation of Small Businesses briefed the Committee and was quite clear in saying that, in Northern Ireland, employers will lose employer National Insurance contribution savings in the region of £4 million per annum as a result of the salary sacrifice aspect of the childcare voucher scheme coming to an end. That is significant money for our many micro, small and medium enterprises. If we are to give proper meaning to our assertion that the economy is front and centre of all that we do, we must do more than simply note that £4 million figure. I will listen with interest to what the junior Minister proposes to do about it.

Finally, I return to the lack of consultation with the Committee. Were it a one-off, we could maybe move on. However, it comes in an environment and a context of papers repeatedly being delivered late to the Committee and of late-notice cancellation of briefings. I know that there are a number of reasons for that. Some are political and down to the joint nature of the office, and some are probably administrative. However, it seems to me, at this stage, that it happens so frequently and consistently that it is hard to dismiss the fact that an element of what is going on is a disrespect being shown by some in the Department towards the Committee.

That is baffling to me for two reasons. First, seven of the 11 MLAs on the Statutory Committee are from parties who provide Ministers in the Department, and, as we know, the Ministers are the Department. Secondly, it baffles me because the Committee has a good track record of assisting the Department. As one example, I will mention our work in scrutinising the Inquiry into Historical Institutional Abuse Bill. It was our amendments, which the junior Ministers acknowledged at the time, that helped to improve the setting up of the historical institutional abuse inquiry. So, the Committee is there to complete its statutory duties and to help through its scrutiny, not necessarily simply to criticise.

I shall leave it at that point, having made it clear that the Committee supports the LCM and, as I said, looks forward to the response from junior Minister McCann.

Mr Moutray: A considerable amount has already been said on this issue in the context of the debate of just a few weeks ago. I do not intend to go into all those details again; rather, I will touch on a few for the purposes of addressing the motion.

The childcare voucher scheme was extremely complicated and suffered from low uptake in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom. Organisations such as Employers For Childcare played a constructive and positive role in ensuring that parents could navigate this complex system. However, it remained challenging, and the uptake was too low. It needed to be reformed. I therefore welcome the moves towards this new scheme, which aims to widen the scope of who can qualify and to simplify access for parents. In addition, it will not be dependent on employers offering it and will be targeted towards those lower-income working families who most need financial support for childcare.

Our analysis at this stage is that the new scheme has significant potential to enhance and support affordable childcare. Importantly, the scheme is being funded centrally from London and will add no additional Budget pressure on Northern Ireland while bringing new financial support for many families. There are things that my colleagues and I would like to see changed. I would like the support in the new scheme to extend to young people aged up to 16 rather than to 12, as currently proposed. In addition, I want to ensure that protection is offered, in so far as is possible and reasonable, to any parents who may be in the group who will not benefit as much from the new scheme when compared with the voucher scheme. We will examine those issues closely as the scheme continues to be rolled out. At this point, we support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I call Mr Alex Attwood.

Mr Attwood: Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Sorry, that was premature. I call Mickey Brady.

Mr Brady: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am not a member of the Committee of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, but I wish to say a few words on the subject, because, certainly in my experience, affordable childcare is absolutely essential, and, unfortunately, it has not been so affordable here in recent times. When I worked in the voluntary sector, we carried out a survey in the Newry area and found that we had one of the worst childcare facilities in western Europe. For a population of 90,000, there were around five registered childminders. The difficulty is that, for people on working tax credits to avail themselves of the childcare element, unless their child is being looked after by a registered childminder, they do not get it. That has caused trouble.

The legislative consent motion will increase the number of people who will be eligible for the childcare scheme. Previously, as I said, affordable childcare has not been easily or readily available. It appears that the new scheme will increase the numbers who are eligible, but there may still be gaps that need to be filled. The new tax-free childcare scheme will help to provide financial support for working families, which is to be welcomed, and, as far as I am aware from what has been said, it will also include self-employed people.

I understand that departmental officials have been asked to sit down and fully discuss issues that groups may want to raise, particularly Employers For Childcare, which has raised concerns. I have met the group on a number of occasions, and, as Mr Moutray said, it has played a very constructive role in providing childcare when it was most needed. In that sense, its concerns need to be addressed, because people who make use of the voucher scheme will continue, as far as I know, with that, but I do not think that new people can be introduced.

The Bright Start scheme was launched by OFMDFM in September 2013, and it fits in with the Programme for Government targets. In my experience, however, a large number of families use informal childcare, whether that is offered by aunts, uncles, mothers, sisters or whomever, which has been an issue, as it means that they cannot access the childcare element of working tax credits. Presumably, the scheme will address that at some stage, although it is my understanding — I can be corrected if I am wrong — that children will still have to be looked after in crèches or the like. Crèches are extremely expensive. When we were conducting research, we found that there were a huge number of crèches in our area but that they were extremely expensive. People simply could not afford them, because they would be working simply to pay their childcare costs. That is an issue.

I welcome the legislative consent motion to introduce the scheme, but I think that there are gaps, particularly, as was mentioned, with the age factor. Children up to the age of 12 only are included, and that will have to be addressed as other schemes cater for children up to and beyond the age of 14. As I said, I am not a member of the Committee, but I think that affordable childcare in the North is such as essential item that anything that focuses on it is to be welcomed.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I can now call Mr Alex Attwood.

Mr Attwood: Thank you for calling me a second time.

I agree with the Chair of the Committee's comments in acknowledging the contribution, input, efforts, campaign and lobbying of relevant organisations in the third sector.

Given that the Committee had been initially unsighted in relation to what was being proposed and, as a consequence, the limitations of what it could do, it was the efforts of external organisations such as Employers For Childcare, the FSB, Early Years and the family of childcare organisations that brought into sharp relief the opportunities of the new proposals as well as the deficits in the new legislation coming from Westminster. Indeed, my observation of what those organisations did on the legislative consent motion and the issues around it is that it was a case study of how a group of external organisations could powerfully influence the view of government and a Committee. The Committee Chair referred, for example, to the fact that there had been an informal gathering of representatives of the Committee and the junior Ministers and officials on the matter. That seemed to me to be a model of good practice in a situation in which we have difficulties getting Ministers to come to Committees, as the Chair indicated. Here was a model of better practice when it came to how a Committee interrogates a matter of public policy in an effort to get it right. All of that happened because of the work of the external organisations, which brought real evidence and clinical analysis to the issue of the childcare payments legislation.

In one way, I have to declare an interest: I am a parent of young children aged five and eight years. Although my wife and I are both in work, with good salaries, I have some sense of parents' struggles in accessing affordable childcare and the multiple complications that arise from that.

I repeat what the Chair said: there was a survey of nearly 20% — a 20% response rate — of those in Northern Ireland who were claiming any form of financial support for the cost of childcare. Where have you ever come across a survey on any public policy issue to which 20% of the affected constituency took time to respond? A consequence of that is that the response must be as valid and compelling as any response to a public attitudes survey, if you like, on any issue. As the Chair indicated, of the 4,500 people who responded, 63% struggled at some point in 2013 to meet their childcare costs; 46% reduced their working hours or even left work because of struggles with childcare costs; and nearly 50% were unsure whether they were claiming all that they were entitled to under the available childcare proposals. If that is the experience of so many of those who are trying to access childcare support and given that those real and daily struggles continue, we have to make sure that, in taking forward the consent motion, all bases are covered when it comes to ensuring that all available childcare options remain available in future.

Questions arise from that that the junior Minister may want to address in his reply. First, he indicated that the final childcare strategy would be published in 2015. Given that he also said that a scoping exercise was to be undertaken for parents who may be disadvantaged by the ending of the voucher scheme in autumn 2015, can he confirm where precisely that scoping exercise is, who is conducting it and who is being consulted on the scoping of the scale of the individuals who may be disadvantaged by the ending of the voucher scheme? If, tomorrow, we are to get a briefing from officials about what the childcare strategy proposals might be and given that the Minister has indicated that the childcare strategy in its final form will be published in 2015 — he might want to confirm when that is anticipated — it seems to be a very urgent piece of work for the scoping exercise to be conducted and concluded in good time so that, if a range of people is disadvantaged by the closure of the scheme next autumn and if it is deemed to be appropriate, provision is made for them in the childcare strategy due to be published in 2015. Who is being consulted? What timeline will the scoping exercise conclude within? Will all that converge, if necessary, with the publication of the final childcare strategy?

Given that we are running out of time and that the voucher scheme concludes in the autumn of 2015, it seems that, in addition to the scoping exercise — the evidence from the external sector that I referred to says unambiguously that a number of people will be disadvantaged by the closure of the voucher scheme in the autumn of 2015 — good practice and good government require an exercise to be undertaken to determine, in the event that people are disadvantaged by the closure of the scheme, what a bespoke voucher scheme might look like as part of an overall childcare strategy. We could end up with a situation being accepted and agreed where a range of people are disadvantaged — I think that that will be the outcome of the scoping exercise — without there being a bespoke scheme on the books to be deployed by the end of next year, when the current scheme closes to new entrants. My second question to the junior Minister is this: is it not a wise course of action that, as part of the scoping exercise, you have a parallel process about a bespoke voucher scheme for people otherwise disadvantaged by the closure of the voucher scheme in 2015? Some indications are that it might be as few as 1,000 families. I am not going to second-guess the scoping exercise, but, if it is that number, is it beyond our capacity to come up with a bespoke scheme? In doing so, we could make a judgement about whether that is the right place to invest childcare moneys compared with the other recommendations that might come forward as part of the overall childcare strategy.

The third question is this: as part of that, have there been further consultations with Treasury, HMRC or any other relevant authority to determine whether, if we came up with a bespoke scheme for people disadvantaged by the closure of the voucher scheme in 2015, it would have the Treasury, HMRC or other approvals necessary to ensure that a bespoke scheme could be delivered? The third sector says that some authorities in London are indicating privately that, if it is the wish of the Northern Ireland Executive to take forward a bespoke voucher scheme for families disadvantaged by the closure of the scheme in the autumn of 2015, that is in order. Have there been conversations with the relevant authorities in Britain to get headline approval for a bespoke scheme in the event that that happens?

The third issue is that there are unspent moneys in the childcare strategy. There will be difficult choices to be made on the right investment on the far side of the conclusion of the childcare strategy. However, even indicatively, is a budget line being provided for what might or might not be required for a bespoke voucher scheme in the event of that being the direction that the Executive and Assembly choose?

The Minister indicated that the money that might be available per child per year was up to £2,000. Is it not the case, Minister, that the average that might be available per child per year is £600? Treasury might want to present the figure of £2,000 per child per year for headline grabbing, but, if I recall correctly, the reality is that, when it works itself through, the figure will be £600 per child per year.

I conclude by recognising that the legislative consent motion creates greater opportunities for a larger number of people to access childcare support. That is recognised, and therefore it is not appropriate to divide the House on the matter. However, as the Ministers know, I and other members of the Committee have been quite persistent in trying to tie down who will lose out on the far side of the new arrangements and to see if we can create mechanisms to accommodate those who will lose out in the new order of things. As we take forward a childcare strategy, we have to cover all bases. This debate is about how best we can cover that particular base.

Mr Lyttle: I welcome the opportunity to speak on childcare and, in particular, on the legislative consent motion on the Childcare Payments Bill, as a member of the Alliance Party and the OFMDFM Committee.

Access to quality, affordable childcare is one of the biggest issues facing families in Northern Ireland. It is absolutely vital to the development of our children; it is vital to adults gaining and sustaining employment; and it is vital to our economy. It is also vital to the rate of child poverty. We heard yesterday that the IFS estimates that as many as one in three children could be in relative poverty by 2020, which is a warning that we should heed carefully in the Assembly. I hope that the investment in childcare payments will be of considerable benefit to many families in Northern Ireland. I and the Alliance Party welcome any investment in childcare and support that will go towards working families across Northern Ireland who struggle to access and afford childcare for their kids. Investment in early years is absolutely vital, and it is vital that we provide the opportunities that all our children deserve.

I welcome the financial support that this scheme will make available. However, the maximum of £2,000 per year per child is a drop in the ocean of the average annual childcare cost, which is estimated in the Employers For Childcare's 'Childcare Cost Survey 2013' to be in the region of £8,000 per child per year. We have a long way to go before we meet the challenge of providing affordable and accessible childcare for our families in Northern Ireland.

Members have gone through the details of the Childcare Payments Bill, but I want to look at them. It creates a new scheme to provide financial support with the cost of childcare for working families. Through the new scheme, the Government will provide £2 for every £8 that a person pays for childcare. That support will be capped at an annual maximum of £2,000 per child. There are no restrictions on the number of children for whom parents can claim support, and the Government intend to introduce the scheme, managed by HMRC, throughout the UK.

We can hope that that will be administered well and successfully and will not cause additional work for OFMDFM, which may be a good thing for us.

It is also a welcome extra investment in childcare support. Parents will apply to HMRC to open an online childcare account, into which they will pay the money, and government will make top-up payments. Parents will be able to allocate the money to a qualifying childcare provider of their choice after they have satisfied the eligibility requirements. Examples of such requirements are that parents must be over 16, be responsible for the child, be in the UK and be in qualifying paid work. It appears that a certain minimum of around eight hours' work at the national minimum wage is likely to be set. Parents will not be able to exceed an income limit of £150,000 per annum and must not be claiming universal credit. The scheme will apply to children under 12, and, in the case of a child with a disability, under 17. Parents must reconfirm their eligibility every three months.

Although there is much to welcome in the scheme, particularly its application to those who are self-employed, there are concerns; perhaps most particularly with the fact that it will close the existing childcare voucher scheme to new entrants. Those who are in the childcare voucher scheme currently can remain in it. It is important that we look at what the childcare voucher scheme is and does. It is a salary-sacrifice scheme, with savings for parents and employers. It allows parents to save, on average, £77 a month and employers to save on National Insurance contributions.

As has been mentioned, there are real concerns about the lack of consultation on this process. Through its work on the third sector, in particular with Employers For Childcare, the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister was able to identify in more detail the concerns that exist in relation to the proposal. The suggestions were that there are two main groups of people whose circumstances will not be improved by the introduction of the Childcare Payments Bill. The first group comprises those who will be worse off under the new scheme than they would have been under the childcare voucher scheme, and the second comprises those who are not eligible for the new scheme and who will not, therefore, be able to progress to employment.

Perhaps I can give an example of the real terms of the situation. Take the Smith family, for example. Mr and Mrs Smith are in full-time employment on a basic rate of tax. They have one child, with their childcare costs at around £450 a month. Under the childcare voucher scheme, Mr and Mrs Smith will each sacrifice £225 a month, which represents a saving of £72 in tax. Over the course of the year, the Smith family will save around £1,728 under the childcare voucher scheme. Under the new childcare payments scheme, Mr and Mrs Smith would pay £360 into an account, with the remaining £90 being supplemented by government. Over the course of the year, using the new scheme, the Smith family would, therefore, save around £1,080. Therefore, they would be around £648 a year worse off under the new scheme. Hopefully, this example puts into some perspective the impact that the new scheme would have on some families in Northern Ireland.

There are also, obviously, concerns in relation to employers. The closure of the childcare voucher scheme to new entrants will, potentially, increase the pay bills of family friendly employers that have supported their staff over many years by providing the childcare voucher scheme. That would be an additional cost at what is an already difficult time for many employers in Northern Ireland. Many of our business organisations, such as the Federation of Small Businesses and the CBI, have done important work, and they are calling on OFMDFM to make sure that there are additional supports for the businesses and employees that will find themselves worse off as a result of the Childcare Payments Bill in Northern Ireland. It has been mentioned that the childcare voucher scheme has brought savings in the region of £4 million per annum for many of our businesses in Northern Ireland.

What can we do going forward? I welcome the commitment from OFMDFM to conduct a scoping exercise on this issue. The consultation to date has been wholly inadequate, and, unfortunately, I believe that it displays an example of the contempt with which OFMDFM treats the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister at times, and indeed the distance that the Department has to go on the development of childcare policy. Concerns have already been expressed today that we have seen around £9 million of a £12 million childcare budget for 2011-15 underspent by the Department.

People have mentioned the Employers For Childcare cost survey that was completed by 4,500 parents in Northern Ireland. It shows the pressure that families in our community are under in relation to this issue. The Bright Start actions have been heralded as a new beginning and a childcare strategy. It has a long way to go, but it does set out some key principles, two of which are informed parental choice and affordability.

We have heard calls for a public awareness campaign around the existing childcare voucher scheme to inform parents of the financial assistance that is available to them now and that would draw down funds from the UK Treasury rather than from the Northern Ireland block grant. This is a public awareness campaign that MLAs and organisations like Employers For Childcare have been calling for for years. Indeed, it is an indictment of OFMDFM that such an awareness campaign has not been rolled out to date. The choice is clear: either the Department can sit on its hands for the next year or it can initiate a far-reaching public awareness campaign in relation to the childcare voucher scheme so that parents can avail themselves of that scheme now and then make an informed choice as to whether the childcare voucher scheme or the new childcare scheme being proposed works better for them. That would be in line with the principles that have been set out by the Bright Start programme. It would bring savings for families now. It would also bring savings for businesses over the next period.

I, in addition to other MLAs, recognise the work of Employers For Childcare. It is one of the finest social enterprises that we have in Northern Ireland. Frankly, it has stepped in and done the work that OFMDFM and other Departments have failed to do. It has conducted an annual cost of childcare survey to set out what is facing our families in Northern Ireland in reality. It has raised awareness of the childcare voucher scheme and assisted families and employers to administer that scheme, bringing savings across the board for our families and businesses in Northern Ireland. That work needs to be recognised. We need to do much more than just refer to the childcare voucher scheme as inefficient when people in Northern Ireland have been doing their utmost to make it as accessible to families here as possible. I hope that OFMDFM will take heed of the Assembly on that and assist those people in raising awareness of that in the short term.

I would also like to recognise the Early Years organisation in Northern Ireland, which has created an application for choosing childcare and early education that is available to families across Northern Ireland. I welcome the commitment of OFMDFM to conduct the scoping exercise. We will hopefully hear more about that at the Committee tomorrow. I believe that there is much more work to be done in conjunction with the community and voluntary sector, families and the Committee if we are going to see the scale of assistance that families and businesses in Northern Ireland deserve and to ensure that families have access to childcare for the development of our children and young people and our economy.

Mr Spratt: I welcome the consent motion in front of the House. At the very outset, there are a couple of things that need clarification. All of a sudden, the term "scoping exercise" has been used by Mr Attwood, Mr Lyttle and perhaps even the Chair. I have spoken to colleagues, and I do not think that I heard the phrase "scoping exercise" at any point. The junior Minister can clarify the exact words in his concluding remarks, but I think that he said that the Department would seek to estimate the number disadvantaged by the voucher scheme. That is certainly what officials consistently said to the Committee during its deliberations on the matter. It is an important matter, and I think that all Committee members were pretty much in agreement on many of the issues and on some of the issues raised by outside organisations.

Mr Attwood declared his childcare arrangements. I have five grandchildren in four families and know very well the difficulties with childcare arrangements, so I declare an interest as well. I also know how grandparents try to help out, and we certainly try to do that as a family. Self-employment features in one of the four families, and it has been very difficult for self-employed people over the past number of years as they have not been able to get into the childcare scheme. Today was the first time that I heard that 116,000 self-employed people will now be eligible for the scheme. Given that they all have accountants or tax advisers who do their books at the end of the financial year, I assume that there will be a much greater take-up of what is now available through the HMRC scheme. That is very important because, over the past number of years and particularly with the way that the economy has been throughout the United Kingdom, many in the Province, who were perhaps previously employed in the construction industry, have had to become self-employed. I know that, from their point of view, the extension of the scheme is very welcome, and, given their importance, I consistently raised that point in the Committee. Let us face it: the voucher scheme will continue if employers who have had it in place want to retain it.

The Department has already committed to undertake an exercise to see how those who are disadvantaged can be supported in some way within future childcare strategy arrangements. All the Committee members welcome that. Given that there were 11,000 people in the voucher scheme and that the new scheme will be opened up to 116,000 self-employed people, I suspect that, if we were to be back in this place discussing the matter in a couple of years' time, we would find that many more had made themselves eligible for what is a very important scheme, particularly for young families. In most cases, both parents now have to go out to work and, in many cases, they find childcare arrangements very expensive.

Overall, the scheme should be welcomed. I welcome the fact that officials said that they will go back to the Department on specific matters and that the junior Ministers have said that they will examine areas in which people may be disadvantaged in the future. However, let us get this scoping exercise out of our heads. It is not what was promised, and it is wrong of the Deputy Chair and Mr Attwood to put unuttered words into mouths. I make that point on the basis that the junior Ministers and OFMDFM have been misrepresented.

I will not take up the Chair's usual rant about OFMDFM.

However, well on you — you got it in again.

Ms McGahan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion. It is important to note that the North could be left without any government-subsidised childcare if the Bill before Westminster does not go ahead here. OFMDFM has received the proposals to extend the provisions of the Westminster Childcare Payments Bill to the North of Ireland by means of a legislative consent motion. If enacted, the Bill will provide the statutory basis for the introduction of a new tax-free childcare scheme to provide financial support to help working families with childcare costs.

The new scheme will replace the existing employer-supported childcare scheme that provides financial support to parents. As childcare is a devolved matter, there is a fear that if the Bill is not extended to the North, we will be left with no scheme to subsidise childcare, as the previous scheme is being phased out. The new scheme, which is aimed at giving relief straight to parents as opposed to employers, would allow child carers, whose employers do not currently participate in the scheme, to apply. A number of concerns were raised regarding the LCM, by Employers for Childcare, for example. The Committee has raised those concerns with officials and will continue to ensure that working families have maximum access to financial support for childcare.

The affordability of childcare is one of the main obstacles to getting people back to work, so it is important that we maintain supported childcare schemes in order to encourage people back into employment. I am aware of a family who pay almost £700 a month in childcare costs. They receive approximately £100 a month in childcare working tax credits, but they cannot avail themselves of a childcare voucher scheme. It is my understanding that it is one or the other. More needs to be done to promote the use of childcare vouchers, as figures show that less than 2% of people apply for them.

The cost of childcare has increased dramatically over the past few years and is seen as a stumbling block for many mothers returning to the work market, as, after paying for childcare, it may not be economically viable to remain in work. Many families do not realise that there is help with childcare. That is not being utilised to the full extent, as recent figures show. Many families with children need to return to work, so, if we are to encourage mothers and fathers back into employment, it is essential that we cater for them by having proper, affordable childcare in place.

In a childcare cost survey that was carried out in 2013, it was estimated that the average cost of childcare here in the North was £158 a week and that childcare costs were taking up to half the average household net income. School-age childcare services cost, on average, £118 a week during term time and £120 a week during summer holidays.

The Programme for Government commits the Executive to publishing and implementing a childcare strategy with key actions to provide integrated and affordable childcare. The first phase of the Executive's childcare strategy, Bright Start, was launched in September 2013. Bright Start aims to create, by 2020, a joined-up, sustainable childcare service supporting developmental needs and positive change for children. The Bright Start childcare strategy works in parallel with a Programme for Government target to grow the economy and tackle disadvantage.

The consultation on the childcare strategy began in December 2012 and ended in March 2013. Submissions to the consultation on the childcare strategy raised a number of concerns regarding provision, for example. It was stated that there are too few childcare places, especially for school-age children in the age range of four to 14. Affordability was also raised. The cost of childcare often outweighs the financial benefits of working. Childcare provision in rural areas was also identified as a particular problem. Childcare for children with a disability was also raised, as was the difficulty experienced where current provision fails to meet their needs.

Research also indicated that there is a significant reliance on informal childcare provided by other family members. As a mother and someone who lives in a rural area, I can relate to that, as there is little or no affordable childcare in rural areas.
Finally, we need childcare services that are affordable and sustainable. Without that incentive, it will be difficult to make work pay. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order. The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately after the lunchtime suspension today. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. When the House returns, the first item of business will be Question Time.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Education): As the Assembly is aware, I bid in June monitoring for nearly £50 million for inescapable pressures and received £5 million. The bulk of those pressures relate to services such as special education and schools maintenance, which are provided to schools by the education and library boards (ELBs). I did not receive any allocations from the October monitoring round. Hence, I have to manage those pressures internally. I am on record stating that the ELBs are currently operating at the extremities of corporate risk, which is why the establishment of the new Education Authority next year is vital.

All five education and library boards have submitted their 2014-15 initial resource allocation plans, and the Department has approved them all. I believe that the five ELBs have the required level of resources to fulfil their remit during 2014-15. However, as I already stated, we face significant internal pressures, and it will be very challenging to deliver a balanced education budget for this financial year. Nevertheless, that is my aim, and I believe that, to date, I have demonstrated a clear commitment to prudent budget management while maximising the use of the finite resources available to me.

Mrs Overend: The five education and library boards have been effectively run down for months, if not years. Will the Minister confirm whether any of the five education and library boards are projecting a financial deficit for the 2014-15 financial year? Will the new single Education Authority be saddled with historical debt at its inception?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said, my Department has accepted and agreed the boards' current spending plans. We would not have accepted and agreed any plans that would have seen a significant overspend or planned overspend by any of the boards. However, we are significantly into this financial year, and unforeseen pressures may bear down on the boards, or other pressures may come to light in the boards, particularly for special educational needs, which place greater pressure on their budget management. I will work with the boards to the best of my ability and financial resources to ensure that, where real pressures are identified, we can support them. However, I am not aware of any board that will overspend at this stage.

Mr Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answers. Will he please outline what steps have been taken to ensure smooth transition from five education and library boards to one authority by April 2015?

Mr O'Dowd: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chomhalta. A business plan has been submitted on the workings and transition between the five education and library boards and the new authority. Obviously, that will depend on the final outcomes and workings of the Education Bill and the final shape, size and roles of the authority. I have urged Members to keep their amendments few and far between, as we are working on a compromise Bill. It is vital that the principles of the Bill are not detracted from if we are to seek agreement on the way forward. However, we are progressing with the transition from the five boards to the new authority. I do not expect the authority to inherit any major or significant deficits from the five education and library boards.

We have been preparing for the Education and Skills Authority (ESA) over the last number of years. The boards have, at times, been running heroically with the number of staff that they have to deliver their services. Staff reductions have been in place in preparation for a single authority, which was ESA, but we are now moving to the Education Authority. So, significant preparation has already taken place to allow us to move forward towards the single authority.

Mr Rogers: I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. Minister, in the first year of operation of the new Education Authority, it is important that it works effectively. What budget has been set aside for the establishment and operation of the new Education Authority in its first year?

Mr O'Dowd: As the Member will be aware, the Executive agreed their draft Budget only last week, and it was presented to the Assembly on Monday. I will be working with my officials over the coming days and weeks to prepare a budget for the Education Department for 2015-16. As part of that budget, obviously how we fund the Education Authority moving forward will be a significant factor.
While welcoming the fact that education received significant protection in the 2015-16 Budget, we have to deal with a significant reduction in resources of somewhere in the region of £94 million, and that will have an impact on my planning for the Education Authority.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I omitted to advise Members that question 12 has been withdrawn.

Mr O'Dowd: Information provided by the General Teaching Council shows that, from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014, there were 598 local graduates, 466 of whom are registered with the council. A total of 417 of those registered have not found a permanent teaching post here. However, 106 of those teachers have found significant temporary work of one term or more. Forty-nine of those registered have permanent teaching posts. However, figures from the council show that, at January 2014, 67% of registered teachers who graduated here in 2009 had secured employment of a permanent or a significant temporary nature.

I recognise that this is a very difficult time for teachers, particularly for those who are newly qualified. The education budget continues to face significant pressures, and that has necessitated cost-based redundancies in teaching staff over the past four years across our schools. As that continues, I suspect that it will impact on the teaching workforce in our schools. I will, however, continue to push the education budget at the Executive table.

Mrs Hale: I thank the Minister for his detailed answer. Will he explain why he is capping pupil numbers in areas that are showing a large population growth? Is that not exacerbating the problem for newly qualified teachers who are trying to find employment opportunities?

Mr O'Dowd: No, because I will be taking all pupils from one area and concentrating them in another area, which means that it is the same number of pupils who require the same number of teachers. In fact, if you were to concentrate all the pupils in one school, you might require even fewer teachers. In fairness to the Member, I know what she is hinting at, but this is not the answer to that question.

Mr D Bradley: Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. Ba mhaith liom a fhiafraí den Aire an mbeadh sé sásta scéim fostaíochta chéad-bhliana do mhúinteoirí nua-cháilithe a thabhairt isteach anseo, fé mar atá acu in Albain? Is the Minister prepared to consider an employment scheme for first-year newly qualified teachers such as the one in Scotland?

Mr O'Dowd: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chomhalta. I thank the Member for his question. We considered the scheme that was outlined in Scotland, and, if we were to have followed through with that, quite significant costs would have fallen on my Department and the Executive. We simply do not have the resources to bring that to fruition. We brought in a similar scheme, but it does not involve the scale of numbers that perhaps everyone in the House would like. Under the Delivering Social Change programme, we brought newly qualified teachers into the workforce for numeracy and literacy projects in our schools, and those are paying great dividends to pupils and to those newly qualified teachers. However, the scale of cost involved in the Scottish scheme was unachievable, given the current budgets and block grant delivered to us by the Westminster Government.

Mr O'Dowd: My mission statement for all post-primary schools is already clear and is set out in my Department's school improvement policy, Every School a Good School. The Member needs to be aware that all post-primary schools are required to deliver the same revised curriculum. The Member also needs to be aware that the legislative definition of a grammar school has no relationship with the curriculum or even with so-called academic selection.

Mr McNarry: I thank the Minister for his answer and for making me aware of certain things that, I can assure him, I am aware of. In light of his answer, will he agree — I will press him — to develop a technically based vocational curriculum in our secondary schools that is dovetailed into post-16 vocational education and apprenticeships?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member's original question and his supplementary question come from a flawed position whereby he believes that, in some way, grammar schools teach a different curriculum to non-grammar schools. All our schools now have to match up to the entitlement framework. They have to offer a wide breadth of subjects for young people to study, and those cover the wide areas commonly referred to as "academic" and "vocational". So, what the Member urges me to do is already in place, and for all post-primary schools, regardless of the nameplate on the front gate.

Mr Brady: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister outline how non-grammar post-primary schools have performed in recent years?

Mr O'Dowd: In the 2013 year, 39·2% of school-leavers in the non-grammar sector achieved five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C or equivalent, including English and maths, compared with 94·8% of those leaving grammar schools. In 2013, 15·5% of school-leavers in the non-grammar sector achieved three or more A levels at grades A* to C or equivalent, compared with 65·1% of leavers in the grammar sector. International evidence and our own analysis point to the fact that concentrating deprivation in particular schools compounds the negative impact that deprivation has on pupil outcomes. In our post-primary sector, that concentration of deprivation is most evident in non-selective schools, and we are aware of the particular challenges facing those schools.

However, it is also worth noting that achievement in our non-grammar sector, and I use the term advisedly, continues to grow, despite the challenges placed on it by the system being largely weighted against pupils by the continued use of alleged academic selection.

Mr O'Dowd: I recognise the importance of continuing professional development (CPD) for teachers and school principals in raising standards and improving educational outcomes for our young people. CPD is mostly delivered by the Curriculum Advisory and Support Service (CASS) and the Regional Training Unit (RTU), which my Department funds.

In each education and library board area, CASS provides advisory and support services to schools. Therefore, it is the main provider of in-service training. To identify training needs, CASS carries out an annual training needs audit of schools, from which it prepares a scheme of support. It is therefore a matter for schools to prioritise the training that they require. The professional development requirements of individual teachers can be established by school leaders through the annual performance review and staff development scheme. CPD for school leaders is provided by the RTU. It includes leadership and management support for emergent and aspirant leaders, as well as serving principals. The RTU provides a range of programmes, based on good practice and research.

In addition, the Department also directly funds other educational partners to provide CPD in specific areas, including special educational needs, STEM subjects and Irish-medium education. Officials are working on a strategy for teacher education and are engaging with key stakeholders to get a consensus on the way forward. That will result in a new strategy for teacher professional development, to be launched next year.

Mr Swann: I thank the Minister very much. I am sure that he is aware that, in the joint DE/DEL review of teacher training, the international panel member, Professor Gordon Kirk, said that there was a:

He also said:

The Minister has just said that he is bringing forward a strategy. Has he any funding to put behind it so that there is a common approach by the Department, rather than leaving the CPD of individual teachers up to individual boards of governors or principals?

Mr O'Dowd: I am personally delighted that so many Members are concentrating on the financial needs of my Department as we start an eight-week consultation on the draft Budget. I have no doubt that Members who rise to speak today will fully support me when I lobby my Executive colleagues for more money for the education budget, as they no doubt know I shall.

I do not have a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. We have been facing significant challenges with the education budget over the last three years, and, as a result of policies from elsewhere — I refer to Westminster — we face significant further pressures on our education budget. However, we are going to develop the strategy. I will engage with my officials over the coming weeks on how we will fund the various programmes of work that exist in my Department and what other programmes of work we can invest in.

I assure the Member that I will have close regard to the fact that we are developing a new teacher development programme, which will require funding.

Mr McCausland: We are all very clear on the role of teachers and principals within the education system, and it is important that they have professional development. School governors also have a very important role to play in the running of a school, setting the ethos, monitoring the work of the school and so on. Is the Minister satisfied with the current level of training provided to governors and will he ensure that there will be a review of that to make sure that it is adequate for the needs of governors? I speak as a former governor.

Mr O'Dowd: The Member is absolutely right. Boards of governors play a key role in any school and are key not only to the professional development of teachers but to the development of pupils through educational achievement. Over the last number of years, I have set aside half a million pounds for training for boards of governors. It is in place. I accept that, as with many other factors, it could do with more money, but we are now moving forward with a training programme for boards of governors, which will take time to bed in. Once it has ran for a number of years, I think that we should review it as we move forward, but I think we have made a good start to it.

Mr Boylan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answers. Will he provide some details on the strategy for the teacher development programme?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said, my officials are engaging with stakeholders and others in relation to how we bring that teacher development programme forward. Obviously, lessons will be learned from CASS, the regional training unit and professionals themselves as to how we ensure that continuous professional development is built upon and that the training and development needs of our teacher workforce are brought to the fore.

Mr McCarthy: How will the Minister seek to reduce teachers' workloads sufficiently to ensure that professional development is genuinely accessible?

Mr O'Dowd: I have no wish to add further burden to teachers in their delivery of education in our schools, but any parent here will be aware that there are teacher training days when pupils are not at school and the teachers are away at training courses. So, we do provide time off from teaching for teachers to go into training practices, which alleviates some of the pressure from the work commitments of teachers.

Mr O'Dowd: I recognise the importance of access to support for speech, language and communication therapy for children in preschool and primary school who require it as part of their special educational needs provision. Responsibility for arranging therapy, of whatever nature, when that forms part of the SEN provision in a child's statement, falls to the education and library boards, whereas prime responsibility for providing the therapy rests with the Health and Social Care Board and trusts, as the employers of therapists.

The Public Health Agency is conducting a review of the current level of allied health professional services and support, including speech and language therapy for children with statements of SEN. My Department and the ELBs are engaging with the PHA in that process. The ultimate aim of their review is to agree a proposed regional model to best meet the needs of those children. Early intervention is particularly important and, since 2001, ELBs have received over £14 million — almost £1·7 million of which was in 2014-15 — in additional funding for early intervention at Key Stage 1 for speech, language and communication needs.

I recently announced additional funding of £200,000 for eligible voluntary private school settings to help them identify and address underdeveloped social, emotional, communication and language skills. Speech, language and communication support is also a core element of each of the 39 Sure Start projects, with the Department investing approximately £1·1 million per annum in that specific provision. In addition, the recently completed three-year pilot in DE-funded early years settings included speech and language therapists working as advisers in some pilot settings across the ELBs.

Mr McKinney: I thank the Minister for his detailed answer and the review. If ever there was a key building block in education, it is bound to be speech and language. Given that up to 30% of preschool children present themselves with language acquisition problems, is any immediate remedial action being taken by the Department in conjunction with health to address that ever-increasing problem?

Mr O'Dowd: As the Member stated, I have given him a quite detailed answer on the services and support available from my Department and others in relation to speech and language therapy. We have carried out a quite extensive pilot scheme in preschool providers, and that work is being analysed to find out which points worked, what others need to be developed and whether the overall approach is the way forward for our education system. I have provided further funding to allow those schemes to continue into the start of the next financial year, while we analyse the work that has been conducted. We await the outcome of that report. I will work on its action points and match them against whatever funding I have available at the time.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Members, I am picking up background noise. I do not know whether it is from inside or outside the Chamber. Will everyone ensure that mobile phones etc are turned off? OK, back to Question Time.

Mr O'Dowd: The independent panel conducting the review of school transport presented its report to me at the end of August. I am taking time to consider the report and its recommendations before deciding on the way forward. The report will be published in due course.

Miss M McIlveen: In light of the concerns being expressed within area learning communities about the cost of transporting pupils between schools in support of the entitlement framework, is the Minister considering extending the use of bus passes around the concept of being able to use them during the school day?

Mr O'Dowd: That element and many others of school transport provision have been analysed by the authors of the report, and I am taking them all into consideration. Obviously, all these factors have cost consequences, and they will have to be decided on as part of my deliberations around the report. Any changes to school transport that I propose as a result of the report will also have to go out to consultation, for the public and others to have their say before any final decisions are made.

Mr McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. The Minister has outlined that there will be some form of public consultation. Can he perhaps give some insight as to what sort of consultation he would like to see happening on this issue?

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for his question. I am studying the report, which is quite detailed and contains recommendations. I have to decide whether we put the full report out to consultation. I am going to publish the full report, but will we put elements of the recommendations that I believe are workable and feasible going into the future out to full consultation, or put the full report out to consultation and await the views of the public and others in regard to that matter? Those considerations form part of my deliberations.

It is worth noting that school transport costs approximately £75 million a year. A significant proportion of that is in relation to special educational needs. I am not suggesting that I want in any way to tamper with or touch special educational needs transport, but quite a significant amount of money is spent on our transport system. We, as a society, are going to face difficult questions in the months and years ahead about how we spend our reducing public resources on public services. I have no doubt that, if and when I go out to public consultation, there will be quite a healthy debate, at times, around the way forward for school transport.

Mr Kinahan: When looking at those transport costs, is the study looking at children who travel maybe 15 or 20 miles so that they can do A levels somewhere else? I know that many in Antrim have to travel a long distance because there is not post-16 provision.

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for his question. The report is quite comprehensive. In fairness to its authors, they have been diligent in their work and spoke to many stakeholders in the transport system, especially young people. I have been impressed by their engagement with young people in relation to the report's findings and observations. All those factors are being taken into account and will, no doubt, be raised many times during the consultation period.

Mrs D Kelly: The Minister has already referred to two key points, one being the budgetary complications, but there are proposals for closure of some rural schools, as well as the proposed closure of Drumcree College in his constituency, which will inevitably lead to increased transport costs. How does the Minister propose to deal with that in the management of his budget? Will he take into consideration a cost-benefit analysis with CCMS and others as part of the business case for retaining some of our local schools?

Mr O'Dowd: All such factors will be taken into account when making a decision about any school, whether it is in my constituency or not. To the best of my knowledge, no development proposal has yet been published for Drumcree College. If one is published, there will be a two-month public consultation process during which the Member and others can provide the Department with any information they believe to be relevant to the decision-making process.

Mr O'Dowd: The performance and efficiency delivery unit (PEDU) produced a report in two stages. The first stage was a scoping study examining a number of areas with potential for realising efficiencies. The second stage involved a detailed examination of two selected areas, namely home-to-school transport and school catering services. There is a link between some of the potential efficiencies identified in these reports and the reporting of savings achieved in my Department’s published savings delivery plan. This will include areas such as professional support for schools, administration and management costs in the Department’s arm’s-length bodies, and procurement.

The recommendations made by PEDU in respect of home-to-school transport and school catering services were initially used to develop a series of actions. Many of these were referenced to the planned establishment of the Education and Skills Authority, with efficiencies to be realised through the redesign of services. Now that the Executive have agreed that legislation should be brought forward to create a single body to replace the existing five education and library boards, the new Education Authority will be able to take on board the PEDU reports and decide what, if any, action it wishes to take with regard to the recommendations made.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Minister. PEDU also highlighted potential efficiency savings in administration, pointing out that CCMS had seen a 51·7% increase in its staff, with costs rising from £1·7 million in the financial year 2002-03 to £2·9 million in 2009-2010. Has the Minister been able to rein in these costs over the past three years?

Mr O'Dowd: That is a reflection of the growing responsibility of CCMS. It is also worth noting that, had we achieved ESA, that would also have taken into account the running costs of CCMS and many other bodies. We can pick out individual sections of reports that suit our arguments at the time, but if we do not follow through on the decision-making process — ie, taking the hard decisions on restructuring — then there is no point in wishing for savings. Savings can and should be achieved through the new Education Authority. We are very close to agreement on the new Education Authority, which, in my opinion, can deliver savings that can also be delivered to front line services.

The two PEDU reports I put on hold concentrated on school meals, which is affecting the lives, work and opportunities of some of the most low-paid workers in our education system, and on school transport. I have dealt with school transport through the transport review, and I am bringing the matter further. I was of the view that, while there was political deadlock over ESA, affecting the lives of the lowest paid in our education system did not make sense to me.

Mr O'Dowd: In preparation for ESA, significant progress was made in planning the delivery of services on a consistent regional basis. That work will now support the creation of the Education Authority and included the development of common procedures and policies for a single organisation. A significant part of the money spent on ESA will therefore support the delivery of the Education Authority and allow it to move forward more rapidly once established. However, it is not possible to quantify the proportion of moneys that will be able to be utilised by the Education Authority.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): That is the end of our time for listed questions. We now move to topical questions. Question 7 has been withdrawn.

Mr O'Dowd: First, I want to put on record that, in my opinion, the actions of the individual in no way reflect upon Parkhall Integrated College. I have had the privilege of meeting members of the school's board of governors and an all-party delegation of political representatives from the town who were seeking a new build for the college. I found them to be courteous, respectful and seeking to live up to the principles of integrated education.

I do not find the actions of the individual to be in accordance with the principles or ethos of integrated education. In my humble opinion, he is not fit to be a governor of an integrated college.

Mr Milne: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas don Aire go dtí seo. In light of the Minister's answer, what training or support is available to boards of governors so that their actions can have a positive influence on school communities?

Mr O'Dowd: In my response to Mr McCausland, I think, during listed questions, I referred to the fact that my Department has set aside £500,000 a year to facilitate training for boards of governors in their roles and responsibilities in managing schools. We are beginning, I believe, to see positive results from that investment. I am not sure whether, if I had endless money, it would make any difference to the attitude of the individual involved — we can only hope.

Mr O'Dowd: If there is such a gap, what is required is a development proposal put forward by the relevant sponsoring body to the relevant education board or, in future, the authority. We will then decide through the normal processes that apply to development proposals — analysing the available evidence and listening to interested parties in the area — whether there is a gap in integrated education.

Mr McCarthy: I thank the Minister for his response. Does he agree that the transformation of, say, Loughries Primary School outside Newtownards would extend integrated provision and therefore accommodate parental choice in the greater Newtownards area?

Mr O'Dowd: I think that the Member knows fine well that I cannot express an opinion on a development proposal that has not yet been published or which may be published in the future. If the Member believes that, it is up to him to convince the relevant authorities to put forward a development proposal. I will take on board all evidence presented to me during that development proposal process before I come to an opinion on it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I will not call the Member who is listed to ask topical question No 3.

Mr O'Dowd: I believe that we have the flexibility. We need to ensure that we get the best from that flexibility and that there is greater coordination between business and schools in the future. I regularly engage with the business sector, as it does with me. In fairness to that sector, it is very proactive in this matter and in how it relates to the role of education under my remit to the economy and the needs of businesses. That engagement is ongoing. I encourage businesses to get involved with local schools and schools to become involved with local businesses.

Minister Farry and I have launched a review of the Careers Service. Part of its role must be to look at the relationship between schools and businesses in their communities; the understanding of teachers, parents and pupils of the needs of the economy as we move forward; and the range of new careers that has developed over the last 10 years and careers that will develop in the next 10 years. The Careers Service must do that to ensure that the educational pathways chosen by young people allow them to be flexible and adaptable to the new economy, which is developing all the time.

Mr McCallister: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. He will know that, in the draft Budget, he is scheduled to lose a significant proportion of money. Does he have any ideological opposition to English-style academies in Northern Ireland? In addition to his earlier reply, they could receive support financially or in kind from personal donors or corporate sponsors. Does he have any objection to that?

Mr O'Dowd: My ideological opposition is not based on the fact that they are English. Let us start there, OK? My ideological opposition to them is the fact that they are a further level of exclusive schools rather than inclusive schools. We have enough schools that exclude pupils in this society without creating another brand to exclude young people. Our curriculum allows all our schools to engage and be proactive with the business sector and the economy, so let us develop that instead of going into academies, as have been provided in parts of England. They have had very mixed reports on their performance.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Tom Elliott is not in his place.

Mr O'Dowd: I am aware of the case; the Member has raised it with me repeatedly. A number of things have to take place before we move towards the start of construction or the announcement of construction in relation to the Holywood schools. There has to be a realisation that Priory College is a sustainable school. That box is now ticked; it is accepted. I have always said that it is not a case of whether it needs a new build; it does.

The next phase is that I have to identify the money to build new schools. I have used the limited resources available to me thus far. I am facing a £50 million cut to my capital budget next year. I accept that there are very tight constraints on all Departments, but I will be concentrating on that with the Finance Minister in the weeks ahead to see whether there is any flexibility around the capital budget to allow me to invest in more schools. When I finalise my capital budget, I will make a further announcement about a new school build programme in the future. It will not be until that stage that I will be able to decide whether all three schools or one in Holywood will be on that list.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his comments. He has partially answered this, but does he recognise the real need for capital investment in the town of Holywood? We have three schools, all of which are over 50 years of age and are in poor condition. We urgently need capital investment.

Mr O'Dowd: I do recognise the need for capital investment in the Holywood area. As I said, the first part of that process was identifying and agreeing that Priory College was a sustainable school. It is, and we need to provide it with new accommodation. That has a ripple effect on the other schools. I do not wish to sound repetitive, and I do not raise the issue just for the sake of raising it, but my capital budget next year faces a significant challenge. I am going to engage with the Finance Minister in relation to that matter to see what options we have to increase that capital budget, or whether there are other funding mechanisms that we can use in relation to the schools estate. Once I know the final outcome of those discussions, I will then make a decision on what, if any, new schools I can build in the foreseeable future that I have not already announced.

Mr O'Dowd: I do not have the full details in front of me, but it is progressing. There has been engagement between the relevant authorities and my Department in relation to moving to the various stages of design etc around the school. I will provide the Member with a full written answer as regards that matter to give him an update as to where the building programme for Parkhall rests.

Mr Girvan: The reason I am bringing the issue forward is that there is concern about some of the moneys for the project and ensuring that they have been ring-fenced. There is concern that, under the current pressures, it might disappear into the black hole that seems to exist in the Department of Education.

Mr O'Dowd: I will ignore that last remark.

As I said, we are in constrained financial times, and why we are in this position was well rehearsed in the House yesterday. I have to make decisions in the weeks ahead about my capital budget and my resource budget. I am of the view that I have eight weeks to negotiate with and harry the Finance Minister and other Ministers, and I intend to use that time very usefully. So, no final decisions have been made about anything yet.

Parkhall is working its way through the process towards the commencement of a new build, and I will give the Member a written update on that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Barry McElduff is not in his place.

Mr O'Dowd: St Joseph's, Crossmaglen, is in the very early stages of the new build programme. I announced the new build in June, if my memory serves me correctly, so it is in the early stages of development. My departmental officials will be engaging with the relevant authority to move that project forward.

Mr Brady: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he face any financial issues arising from the current economic crisis that might halt or delay that project? Go raibh maith agat.

Mr O'Dowd: As I outlined repeatedly during this Question Time, I, along with those in other Departments, face significant financial pressures moving into the 2015-16 financial year. I am not in a position to answer the Member's question either affirmatively or negatively.

I am still engaged with my officials on my budget, and I will be engaging with the Finance Minister and other Ministers on the draft Budget and progressing our way through the next eight weeks. I will be discussing, particularly with the Finance Minister, a range of announcements that were made as part of the Budget speech yesterday to see whether there are other ways of funding the school building programmes going into the future. So, I have a number of options that I wish to explore.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The next period of Question Time is not due to commence until 2.45 pm, so I ask you to take your ease for a few minutes.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): We will resume Question Time. It is now time for questions to the Minister for Employment and Learning.

Dr Farry (The Minister for Employment and Learning): The most recent published statistics show that, as of 30 April 2014, 481 employed apprentices in the South Antrim constituency are being funded through my Department's ApprenticeshipsNI programme to undertake the off-the-job training element of their apprenticeship. Of those, 250 are targeted to achieve level 2 qualifications, and 231 are targeted to achieve level 3 qualifications. Apprenticeship qualifications are outlined in apprenticeship frameworks for each occupational area. The age distribution is as follows: 192 are between 16 and 19 years old; 222 are between 20 and 24 years old; and 67 are aged 25 or older. The Member will be aware that I published a new strategy for apprenticeships, 'Securing our Success', in June 2014. It outlines a significant new approach to apprenticeships to be introduced in Northern Ireland between now and 2016. It will be central to transforming the skills landscape in Northern Ireland and securing our economic success. Evidence shows that apprenticeships provide an excellent means by which employers can obtain the skills they require, as well as being assured that there is a critical mass of people with strong technical and employability skills across the economy. Apprentices know that they are getting the skills that are required by employers and are relevant to the economy, both now and in the future.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his very full answer. Does he believe that enough is being done to promote on-the-job training for young people exiting the formal education system?

Dr Farry: The Member is right that Northern Ireland is starting from a relatively small base on apprenticeships, which somewhat goes against what people view as the industrial heritage of Northern Ireland. However, the new strategy is set to change the landscape dramatically. Key interventions include a new advisory forum to look at the system as a whole that will include employers and other key stakeholders and a range of sectoral partnerships that will try to drive apprenticeships in particular sectors, including drawing attention to opportunities for employers. We are working on five potential new sectoral partnerships. Hopefully, there will be more announcements on that in the very near future. Critically, for the first time in Northern Ireland, we are also looking to introduce a central service that will act as a brokerage for employers and potential young apprentices so that we can have a more efficient matching of supply and demand. A lot can be done outside the structures, whether by MLAs or other opinion formers, to highlight the importance of the apprenticeship pathway as a strong alternative to the more traditional academic pathways that people are perhaps more familiar with.

Mr Kinahan: Is the Department involved in studies of the number of pupils in Antrim moving to higher skills and apprenticeship training and having to travel from their schools to Newtownabbey and Belfast? Is the Department looking at how we can do it better in Antrim so that all the schools work with the technical colleges, and, maybe one day, we can get everything back into Antrim?

Dr Farry: I am certainly keen to ensure that we develop the capacity around apprenticeships and vocational training not just in Antrim but in every quarter and corner of Northern Ireland. With reference to South Antrim, there is a critical mass of good employers who are interested in apprenticeships and are already engaged. However, there will be times when people move to other parts of Northern Ireland for work opportunities, and that also applies to apprenticeships. It is important that we encourage labour mobility and recognise that it is part and parcel of the modern world of work. That is matched, of course, by ensuring that we do what we can to invest in local capacity. I can certainly write to the Member and give him any information that we have on the inflow and outflow of apprentices. However, I would not describe the situation as unhealthy. As long as we are providing the right opportunities and getting the right level of engagement from employers and young people in Northern Ireland as a whole, we should be pleased.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Questions 2, 4 and 10 have been withdrawn.

Dr Farry: The transfer of contracted staff engaged in the delivery of the Steps to Work programme to the subcontractors involved in the delivery of Steps 2 Success is a matter for the respective organisations. The transfer process is subject to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, known as TUPE, which is a defined legal procedure. The Department is not directly involved in the process.

Mr McKinney: Nonetheless, I am trying to obtain some information. Can you outline how many of the most successful contractors and subcontractors under Steps to Work will be in the supply chain under Steps 2 Success?

Dr Farry: I am happy to provide that information to the Member. It is quite detailed. All the information is on the Department's website, but I will also make sure that my officials write to him to give him the full details.

The headlines are that we have the three main contractors, which are Ingeus for the Belfast region, EOS for the northern region and Reed in Partnership for the southern region. Given that the Member is a Belfast MLA , I will give him the supply chain specifically for Belfast: we have Armstrong Learning NI, People 1st, Springfield Learning, SES Consortium and Addiction NI.

Mr Nesbitt: To continue the theme, what is the Minister, as a Northern Ireland Minister in a Northern Ireland Executive that puts the Northern Ireland economy first, doing to maximise Northern Ireland job creation out of the scheme?

Dr Farry: The scheme is designed to assist us with employability in our labour market and is therefore part of a much wider landscape of what my Department offers to support job creation and ensure that we have a strong skills pipeline. Already, we have had discussion around apprenticeships, for example, and we have a new strategy in place. We will shortly make a statement on a new system of youth training that will complement apprenticeships. We have our more established routes through universities and further education colleges, albeit that there is a question mark over the scale of the future offer in the light of the budget restrictions.

A number of our other programmes are about how we can re-engage people with the labour market, including people who are economically inactive or, in the case of Steps 2 Success, those who are long-term unemployed. We have designed the programme specifically for Northern Ireland. We have not simply copied the work programme from Great Britain. Indeed, I hope that we will do things better here and have a stronger track record of placing people into sustainable employment, which is what this is ultimately about.

Mr Flanagan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister will be aware that I am not exactly a fan of the scheme. Given that the first thing that it has done is put a significant number of people on the dole, is there anything to stop those people from applying for a programme through the Steps 2 Success scheme?

Dr Farry: I think that the Member is being somewhat flippant in making that comment. I ask him this question: if he is dissatisfied with the current programme, what is his alternative? I will be charitable and assume that the Member wants to assist people —

Mr Flanagan: It is questions to the Minister.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Order.

Dr Farry: — who are long-term unemployed into employment. We seek to build on the track record of Steps to Work with a new and improved programme through which we get a better return on employment.

As I said, TUPE will be applied in the shift between contracts. That has still to fully work out, but there is a protection of employment that is integral to it all. I do not recognise the comment that the Member makes about vast numbers of people being made unemployed on the back of the switch between programmes.

Dr Farry: JTI is currently engaged in a consultation process with the trade union and staff to discuss the potential closure of its factory in Lisnafillan, Ballymena. I have met representatives from JTI Gallaher to discuss the recent announcement and ways in which my Department could assist.

The European globalisation adjustment fund supports workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and global financial and economic crises. My officials have been in contact with the European Commission office in Belfast and the Commission in Brussels to discuss the potential for an application to be made to the fund. All applications must be agreed by the member state Government. Therefore, my Department has also initiated discussions with relevant officials in the Department for Work and Pensions. My Department will continue to liaise with the Commission and the UK Government.

Regardless of the success of any bid to the European globalisation adjustment fund, my Department will provide a range of services, if required, through the redundancy advice service, the Careers Service, Bridge to Employment and the further education sector, particularly the Northern Regional College. I will ensure that my Department does everything it can to assist those affected by the recent announcement and will continue to work with the company throughout the process.

Mr McKay: I thank the Minister for his answer. Obviously, it will depend on the outcome of the talks between the employees and Gallaher's. Following on from that, €6 million was drawn down from the fund by Austria, for example, but we are dependent on the Westminster Government being positive about the application, should it be forthcoming. Will the Minister outline how positive the British Government have been about the fund? They have not drawn down any of that funding before.

What discussions have he and the Enterprise Minister had with other manufacturing companies in the wider area about the possible relocation of those jobs?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I will allow the Minister to choose which question he wants to answer. Members should remember that they are allowed to ask a question.

Dr Farry: The Member packed a lot in. I will try to cover a number of the points that were made. It is a serious issue and deserves as full an explanation as possible.

On the Member's last point, I chair a manufacturing and engineering working group. The last meeting of that group was at Caterpillar in Larne, and we highlighted the potential opportunities that would be available in the wider sector.

On his first point, it is worth stressing the point that we are in a consultation period, so final decisions have yet to be taken about what will happen. Secondly, the timescale of any redundancies will be around 18 months, and production needs to continue in the factory. Indeed, if anything, production may intensify over the coming months, as the factory seeks to maximise its production under the current regulatory framework.

The Member is quite right that the UK Government have never supported an application to the fund, but there is always a first time, and we will strongly make the case if it is appropriate. One of the key determinants is whether there will be a net loss of jobs in the European Union. In a context in which jobs in Ballymena were relocated elsewhere in the European Union, there would be no net loss jobs in the EU, so those jobs would not be eligible for support from the fund. However, there is the potential to make an application on the basis of the net loss of jobs combined with the loss of jobs in the supply chain. I have raised the issue with the Executive, and there is cross-party support for the work that is being done with DWP and the Commission to prepare the ground for a bid, which can only be made in the teeth of the actual redundancies.

Mr Swann: The Minister referred to the 18-month timeline for the factory closure. Will he assure the House and the workers that he and his Department will still be there in 18 months' time to ensure that the workers are upskilled and retrained and will not just disappear into the night once the glare of the PR and the cameras goes?

Dr Farry: Given our political situation, I cannot perhaps give a personal guarantee of that. However, it will be a priority for as long as I am in post, and I am sure that that would apply to any successor in my Department in any context. It is fair to say that the issue is a concern across all the political parties, and there is consensus on the range of steps that we need to take.

I have met representatives of the unions and the management of the factory. We have to respect the fact that a consultation is under way, and we do not wish to interfere with production in the factory. We can, however, undertake advanced planning around some of the retraining programmes, and that is where the Northern Regional College will come into its own as a key delivery partner. We can also prepare the groundwork for any bid to the European Commission and potentially have something in draft form that is unofficially cleared in advance of a formal application. Again, that could only technically be made in the context of the redundancies becoming live.

Mr Dallat: I am trying to get my head round all of this. The Minister tells us that production might well increase over the next couple of years. What protection is given to workers who want to leave early and avail themselves of their redundancy payments and so on? Has the Minister got assurances from JTI that it will be flexible and will afford every opportunity to those employees to leave early, if they so wish, if another job is available, and that they will not lose the perks they have worked hard for over the years?

Dr Farry: We need to be fair to the company in this regard and recognise that they did not have to make these announcements in the timescale in which they did. At present, the law in Northern Ireland dictates a 90-day consultation in relation to redundancy of this size. So, in theory, they could have waited until the start of 2016 to make it public. The fact that they have moved early allows us to engage in a lot of planning around the situation, and that gives us vital breathing space.

The last thing we want to do is undermine the current business model of the factory. Again, I stress the fact that we are still in the consultation period, and no final decisions have been taken in this regard. We need to be careful about assuming that things are a done deal. There is a formal process around redundancy, and that is a process that has to be respected in this situation, but I think the fact that good warning has been given is to the advantage of workers and government as we consider how we can best address the issue with proper long-term planning.

Dr Farry: My Department does not have policy responsibility for matters relating to the introduction of the living wage and has not held any discussions with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on the issue.

Mr F McCann: Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I understand that Belfast City Council recently passed a motion on implementing a living wage. Given that this is Living Wage Week, and given that we live in a low-pay economy, can the Minister assure us that he will take up the mantle of pushing for a living wage for low-paid workers?

Dr Farry: I am prepared to say this to the Member: I am happy to encourage any employer to pay the living wage on a voluntary basis. I think that all of us want to see people getting as much money in their pockets as they possibly can. However, I think that we need to be somewhat cautious around a degree of compulsion or making something like this mandatory. The best way to drive up wage levels within an economy is to invest in skills and, on the back of that, to achieve a gain in productivity. That will lead to a natural increase in wage levels. If you artificially set the bar in that regard at too high a level, there is the potential that you will undermine jobs, that jobs will be removed from the economy and that more people will end up in unemployment. So, it is important that we approach this in a responsible and balanced manner. That is why I stressed the voluntary adherence to what the Living Wage Commission is saying, based upon the particular characteristics of businesses.

We need to bear in mind that a large number of people in Northern Ireland earn below the living wage threshold. On the one hand, people may say that that is a very clear example as to why we have to stress the importance of people being paid the living wage. Equally, it exposes that there may well be a danger if we move too far too fast within the structure of our economy at present. That is why I urge a degree of caution in the matter.

I am also mindful that we have a large number of employment programmes through which we pay subsidies to employers to take on people who are unemployed or who, potentially, will be economically inactive. Again, if we are setting mandatory levels in excess of the market rate in that regard, we may end up in a situation where our ability to move people from unemployment into sustained employment is compromised. That is another factor that we have to take into consideration.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Chris Hazzard is not in his place.

Dr Farry: The latest employer skills survey, from 2013, reported that Northern Ireland had the lowest level of skill shortage vacancies across the UK. The report found that approximately 20% of all vacancies that Northern Ireland employers found hard to fill were, in part, due to skills shortages. While that was the lowest level reported, it still had an impact on employers’ ability to run their business. As detailed in our skills strategy, my Department has a clear mission to address those skills issues through ensuring that the supply of skills matches demand from industry. Our skills solutions advisers have a key role in engaging directly with employers to understand and address their skill needs.

Furthermore, I have worked with employers to establish a number of working groups across key sectors — including ICT, advanced engineering and manufacturing, and food and drink processing — to address particular skill needs in sectors. We have also developed a new programme of apprenticeships, and we are currently exploring a new system of youth training. We are also engaging the Northern Ireland Centre for Economic Policy to develop a skills barometer, which will provide useful information to identify where skills development will be required in the future.

Mr Wilson: Does the Minister share my alarm that some sectors are reporting that up to 40% of firms are indicating that growth potential is being hampered because of skill shortages, especially in the engineering sector? Given that this is engineering week, what action has he taken, along with DETI and employers, to get employers to go into schools, colleges and universities to change the perception that many young people have of the opportunities that exist in the engineering industry?

Dr Farry: I will respond to the Member in two respects. First of all, very specifically, I chair, as I have mentioned, a working group on engineering and advanced manufacturing, which brings together colleges, universities, Departments and a range of employers. We have an action plan in place, and a number of the actions that the Member has identified are contained in that action plan. That is something that we review and refresh on a six-monthly basis. More generally, the Member will also be aware that Brian Ambrose has chaired an expert panel that was appointed by me and John O'Dowd to take forward a review of careers policy. We have now received that report and are studying it. Again, whether we are talking about the engineering sector or other key sectors in the economy, hopefully, the recommendations of that report will go a long way to ensure that we lay the platform and foundation for a much better matching of supply and demand within our economy.

Mr Ramsey: Following on from Mr Wilson's question, I recently visited a very successful jobs fair in the Millennium Forum in the city, and it was clear that a number of companies were experiencing difficulties securing skills from people in the city. What discussions has the Minister had with Invest Northern Ireland? What are the outcomes of job fairs in respect of preparing and looking at lessons learned?

Dr Farry: Jobs fairs are an effective tool to match those who are looking for work with those who have vacancies. Just to put this in context, at the most recent jobs fair that we hosted in Belfast, we had potentially around 1,500 vacancies available. Several thousand people were coming through the doors, and people were actually leaving with job offers or potential formal interviews for jobs. So it is producing results in that context.

Beyond that, the Member was also alluding to wider strategic discussions that we can have around issues, and he mentioned Invest Northern Ireland. My Department runs a programme called Assured Skills, which works alongside Invest NI to attract inward investment and also works with local companies. We put in place very bespoke programmes to move from what is a very good generally trained population to ensure that we are investing in the very particular skills that companies require. The Member will be familiar with a number of academies and areas — such as software testing, cloud computing and data analytics, and, most recently, this week, around sales and export — that we have put in place to address some of the very particular requirements and demands that are being voiced to us by industry.

Ms Lo: Can the Minister give an assessment on how the budget cut for next year for his Department may affect his efforts in skills training in order to meet the skills shortage in Northern Ireland?

Dr Farry: I thank the Member for her question. We have heard a lot of commentary around the importance of job creation. It is important that I stress that job creation comes in a number of different ways. At its base has to be a strong skills base in Northern Ireland. That is how we go out and sell Northern Ireland internationally to potential inward investors. It is how we ensure that our local companies are able to grow. There is an ongoing challenge of ensuring that we match supply and demand, which is at the heart of the original question, and ensuring that we are investing in the most relevant areas for the businesses of the future. However, I have some very real concerns, on the back of the recently announced draft Budget, that the inevitable cuts in higher and further education will remove places, which will not only undermine the life opportunities of young people but corrode our economic base.

At a time when we are emerging, at long last, from a very difficult and deep recession, and when we have the potential to grow our economy through levers such as the lower level of corporation tax, we will not be able to fully maximise the opportunities if we do not have a proper skills base. Potentially, we are looking at a situation in which Northern Ireland is the only part of the Western World where the number of university places is going backwards. I do not think that that is a place where any of us wants to be.

Dr Farry: I share the aspiration of John Keanie, the Commissioner for Public Appointments, for greater diversity on the boards of our public bodies. It is concerning that many seem to think that public appointments are not for them. Unless a board fully reflects the breadth of knowledge, skills and experience in the wider community, its full potential and effectiveness may not be realised.

Public appointments in my Department are decided on the basis of a robust, merit-based system, which complies with the commissioner’s code of practice and aims to identify the best person for the job. However, there is scope to continue to improve diversity through effective awareness-raising of what public appointments are and how individuals can apply, and by ensuring that the process is accessible.

My officials have taken various steps to enhance diversity, such as using social media to publicise competitions, engaging with diversity bodies, and clarifying and streamlining the application process. This has had some success: for example, recent competitions attracted twice as many applicants as previously, and the pools of applicants were more diverse. However, more can be done.

My officials are compiling information on best practice throughout these islands with a view to identifying new ways to broaden interest in public appointments. They are also working with Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) colleagues on taking forward the recommendations in John Keanie’s diversity report, published earlier this year.

Ms McCorley: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I appreciate the answer given by the Minister, but only 464 of a total of 1,400 public appointments across the board in the North are women. In that context, would he consider looking at ways outside the box to assure that diversity is actually the case, rather than just paying lip service?

Dr Farry: I thank the Member for the question, and I share the aspiration and objective that she outlined. Ultimately, appointments have to be based on merit, which is at the core of the code. Gender, like other factors, cannot be taken into consideration in the final merit-based decisions. The key probably lies in ensuring that we have as representative a pool as possible, which means maximising applications from women and other underrepresented sections of society. I am pleased that we have seen an increase in applications in my Department and that some of the different ways of promoting this are having an effect. Obviously, more can be done, and I am always happy to learn lessons in that regard. I have asked my officials to keep working on the matter. We will, no doubt, share across Departments any best practice and lessons that we pick up along the way.

Mr D Bradley: Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mar a dúradh ansin, is annamh a cheaptar mná ar na boird seo. Lena chois sin, is annamh a cheaptar daoine míchumasacha, nó daoine faoi 30 bliain d’aois, nó daoine ó mhionlaigh eitneacha ar na boird stáit. An ndéanfaidh an tAire cinnte de nach mar sin a bheas le linn dó bheith ina Aire? Women, as mentioned earlier, people under 30, people with a disability and those from ethnic minorities are rarely appointed to boards. Will the Minister ensure that changes are made under his watch?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I ask the Minister to make a brief response.

Dr Farry: Yes.

Mr D Bradley: Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): That is the end of our time for listed questions; we now move on to topical questions. Question Nos 5 and 6 have been withdrawn.

Dr Farry: We are developing, as the Member will know, a number of programmes, in particular new strategies on apprenticeships and youth training. My officials and their counterparts in the Republic of Ireland have had discussions on those and, in particular, on issues around mobility. The Member will also be aware that, in Northern Ireland, we provide a large number of further education places for students from the Republic of Ireland. I have to say that the direction of travel is very much one way. The net cost to the public purse in Northern Ireland is in excess of £7 million, and this is becoming a major drain on our public resources, particularly at a time when finances are so challenging. I would say that, from our perspective, we are doing a lot to facilitate cooperation on both sides of the border on training programmes, but, in our residents moving in the other direction, that is not necessarily reciprocated in the level of offer on the southern side of the border.

Ms Fearon: I thank the Minister for his answer. Obviously, it is hugely important that we focus on developing the border region, given that there are higher levels of job losses, higher migration and more barriers to trade. Would the Minister be willing to engage, at some point, with representatives of the steering group behind the border development zone to explore ways in which his Department can support that concept?

Dr Farry: Yes. If the group wishes to contact my private office and ask for a meeting, I have no doubt that one would be granted.

Dr Farry: As the Member will know, the published cut for my Department is 10·8% for the 2015-16 financial year. This does not, of course, take into account changes in prices, so the real-terms cut will be in excess of that. We also have to bear in mind that what happens in one year cannot be viewed in isolation from other Budget phases. In particular, when we are investing in training places or university places, where there has to be a commitment over more than one academic or training year, we need to have a much greater degree of certainty in that respect.

I have already alluded to the fact that skills are the foundation of a strong economy, and that is true in Northern Ireland as much as anywhere else. Perhaps it is even more true here because we have to transform our skills base to ensure that we will be truly competitive globally. A lot has been done in that regard over the past number of years. There are now some very real question marks over the scale at which we can continue to invest, particularly in university and further education places. That means that some young people may be denied opportunities to invest in their skills and their future. It also means that local companies and, indeed, potential investors may be denied the opportunity to get the skills that they require, and we may not see some businesses grow or some businesses come to Northern Ireland as a consequence.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Given the shocking information that you have given us about the inability to invest in young people's futures and job prospects, what steps will you take to mitigate the impact of that for as many young people as possible?

Dr Farry: First, we have to be conscious that the draft Budget is out for public consultation. Concerns that I may voice about my Department are not about special pleading for my own point of view and the services that I provide. There is a whole host of other Budget issues that we have to reflect upon, and they will be reflected, no doubt, in the responses that will be received from stakeholders.

Looking inwards as well, I will seek to act as strategically as possible, which means trying to protect, first and foremost, those areas that are most relevant to the economy, as well as looking to those services that we provide to those who are most vulnerable. However, in the context that we face, trying to achieve those objectives is going to be incredibly difficult.

I also think that there is a very deep, fundamental lesson in all this. Part of the reason why we are in this difficulty is a failure to face up to the need to accept welfare reform. There is no point in simply investing in transfer payments to people so that they have an adequate standard of living through benefits; that is something that we all share. However, unless we invest in training programmes that allow people to invest in their skills and to have the opportunity to secure a job, in effect, we are condemning them to a life on welfare, rather than giving them the opportunities to play a fuller role in realising their aspirations in our society. So, I think that we are missing the much bigger picture in the way that we approach this.

Dr Farry: At this stage, there are no immediate plans for the Magherafelt campus of the Northern Regional College. We are awaiting a business case on some capital redevelopment, and there are probably three issues at stake. The first is the future of the campus in Larne and what happens there; the issue is not whether one is there or not, just in case the Member for East Antrim is getting agitated. The second issue is the future provision for Ballymena, and the third is the future provision for the north coast, where we have existing campuses at Ballymoney and Coleraine. That has been a matter of considerable interest for a number of his colleagues in their respective constituencies. Hopefully, that business case will be with us in January 2015, and we will take decisions on the way forward as soon as we can afterwards.

Mr I McCrea: I will let the Members in the other constituencies deal with their own, as no doubt they will. I think that the Minister is confirming that the Magherafelt campus is not under any immediate threat, and I would be happy if he could clarify that again. Given that it provides an excellent service not just to those who are part of the FE sector but in the work that it does in conjunction with local schools, will the Minister at least clarify that it is not under threat and that there are no proposals in that regard?

Dr Farry: I am more than happy to give the Member all the assurances that he needs that there is no question mark hanging over the Magherafelt campus.

Dr Farry: Building on the question from his colleague a few minutes ago, the Member will be aware that we have a large number of campuses distributed across Northern Ireland. In some respects, further education is better placed to engage with what, compared with other parts of Northern Ireland, can be a very rural population. It is ultimately for the FE colleges to market their courses. However, I would draw the Member's attention to this: in our higher education strategy, we are looking to see how we can place some outposts of our universities in the FE sector, and we are looking to develop a number of pilots on that. Hopefully, there will be some clarity on that over the coming months.

Mr G Robinson: Does the Minister agree that, by promoting the gaining of qualifications, we are increasing the employability of people from all areas, urban and rural, and from all age groups?

Dr Farry: Absolutely. The Member will also be aware that Northern Ireland comes from quite a low skills base. Historically, we have had some people at the very top of the skills ladder who do extremely well, but we have also had a lot of people with either low or no qualifications. I have no doubt that that is perhaps more acute in some rural areas than elsewhere in Northern Ireland. So, the Member's message about investing in skills is crucial. As we look to the future, more and more jobs will require a footprint with higher-level skills. We are projecting, for example, that, by 2020, almost half of those in employment will need to be skilled to level 4 or above. Those at level 2 or above are well in excess of 80% of the population, and we need that level of skill. By contrast, the opportunities for those with either level 1 or no qualifications will be less than 10%. At present, about 20% of jobs are filled by people with that type of background. Over the coming years, there will be a much diminishing range of opportunities for people with low skills or no qualifications. It is important to get that message out.

Dr Farry: We are always in discussion with our further education colleges, particularly the principals and chief executives. Those discussions have been had and will continue. While perhaps I was able to give reassurance to Mr McCrea about campuses on the capital front, equally, I have to be very blunt with the Member and say that we are looking at a very precarious situation in further education, whereby the full current offer will have huge difficulties in being maintained, and all colleges will be facing up to what may be some very difficult decisions over the coming months. That is the simple reality that we find ourselves in when we are faced with the potential budget cut in excess of 10%.

Mrs Overend: I thank the Minister for his response. Given that the South West College delivers higher education locally to 1,600 students in partnership with Queen's University, does he anticipate that such further education colleges might be given the resources to increase their capability in the face of cuts to university places in order to maintain and improve the skill set of people in Northern Ireland?

Dr Farry: I will build on the answers that I gave to my colleague Mr Dickson and to Mr Robinson a few moments ago. We are very mindful of the need to focus on the provision of higher-level skills in our economy, and that includes academic and vocational skills. I am also very mindful of the need to act strategically in the way in which we address quite severe cutbacks. In that respect, I have no doubt that the FE colleges will want to focus on the areas that are most relevant to the needs of the economy generally and also to their local subregional areas. Higher education within further education is a key component of what the colleges offer, and I have no doubt that, while no area can be immune from the cutbacks, people will want priority to be given to that area strategically.

Dr Farry: The Member may have missed quite a lot of the things that I have been saying over the past number of years about the teacher training infrastructure in Northern Ireland. We have commissioned a two-stage review. The first stage outlined the financial implications of our fragmented system, and the crux is that we are spending more on training teachers in Northern Ireland than on training engineers. We have too many teachers but not enough engineers, so something is not quite right. We have now completed the second stage of that review, which maps out the options on the way forward, and we are in discussions with providers about the different models. Those discussions are still under way, and I expect robust and challenging comments to be made to all the providers in those meetings. Indeed, that has happened.

Mr Bell (Junior Minister, Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister): I start by saying a sincere word of thanks to Mr Nesbitt, the Chairman of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, Stephen Moutray, Mr Brady, Mr Attwood, Mr Lyttle and Ms Bronwyn McGahan for their contribution to the debate.

Given the impact that the Childcare Payments Bill can have on working families, I am not surprised by the interest shown by Members. Indeed, it reflects the scrutiny that was given to this by the OFMDFM Committee when the legislative consent motion was in Committee. From listening to what everybody said, it is fairly safe to say that the vast majority of the Members who spoke agree that more needs to be done to support families with childcare costs. The Bill will make a valuable contribution to enabling more working parents to access financial support to help with their childcare costs. Some Members raised concerns about the specifics of the new tax-free childcare scheme and on the way in which it will be implemented. I will do my best to respond to each of the points raised.

I welcome the positive comments that the Chairman of the OFMDFM Committee made. It was a very difficult, tight time frame for all of us, and I think that we tried, formally and informally, to get through it as best we could. I am aware that the Committee expressed its disappointment that it was not consulted earlier about the tax-free childcare scheme, so let me try to explain why. Her Majesty's Treasury launched the public consultation on the coalition Government's plans to introduce tax-free childcare in August 2013. The consultation document sought views on the design and operation of the proposed new tax-free childcare scheme. Immediately prior to that launch, the relevant UK Minister wrote to alert the Northern Ireland Administration to the fact that the Government would be publishing a consultation document on tax-free childcare. The letter stated that tax-free childcare was a reserved matter and, as such, would be delivered by the UK Government on a UK-wide basis. It did, however, welcome contributions from officials during the consultation period. At that point, the issue was not a devolved matter, just as the employer-supported childcare scheme is not a devolved matter.

In early 2014, devolved officials were approached by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs about the need for a legislative consent motion to implement tax-free childcare here. That communication indicated that the Home Office legal advisers branch and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs legal advisers were both of the view that the tax-free childcare scheme may be within the competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Officials took legal advice from the Departmental Solicitor's Office, which confirmed that the proposed tax-free childcare scheme did not fall within the excepted fields, as provided by schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That was communicated to OFMDFM Ministers on 18 March 2014. Therefore, when it became clear that tax-free childcare was neither a tax nor a duty and was thus a transferred matter, the OFMDFM Committee was engaged after OFMDFM Ministers and the Executive agreed to promote a legislative consent motion on the matter.

I appreciate the concern that the Committee had, as elucidated by its Chairman, Mr Nesbitt, on the potential for disadvantage. Currently, if we take some of the information that we got from Employers For Childcare — I share in the compliments paid on the excellent work that it and the other groups have done — we are looking at around 1,000 people a year being recruited under what would have been the old scheme. We understand from the Treasury that, under the new scheme, 80% of people will be better off, which, potentially, if we take into account the 1,000, leaves us with a figure in the region of 200 people who may be worse off.

The point was raised also about children over 12 years of age. The research that I have noted, by RSM McClure Watters, indicates that only around 6·5% of childcare providers provide for children who are over 12. Many of those are for disabled children and, as I have taken pains to point out, disabled children up to age 17 are included in the new scheme.

I appreciate the work that Mickey Brady has done. He spoke to me formally in the Chamber and indicated his concern that childcare providers should be registered. It is the case that, under the new scheme, people can go to whomever they wish, but the childcare provider must be registered. I appreciate that there is a concern for child safety. Family members also need to be registered, and they can do so as a childminder within their own home. My response to Mr Brady is that tax-free childcare will support parents with the cost of childcare that is formally registered or approved, and that can include childcare provided by nurseries, playschemes, childminders, nannies and school-based childcare. The providers will be registered with the health and social care trusts or approved under the home childcare providers scheme.

I will respond to some of the comments that were made by Mr Attwood. The intention is that the childcare strategy will be a flexible, living document, able to take into account the findings that we constantly get, even if the strategy has been published. We are trying to ascertain as quickly as possible who will be disadvantaged. We want to check whether, where people are disadvantaged, they can be helped by some or other of the key actions. We started with 15 Bright Start key actions. We want to see whether they can fit in with or be a match for the people who are potentially going to be disadvantaged — the 20%. We will try to ascertain that as quickly as we can to ensure the best outcome for everyone.

Mr Attwood: I thank the Minister for giving way. I note his comment that he is trying to assess as quickly as possible the number of people who may be disadvantaged by the end of the scheme for new entrants. Can I take it from that that, for example, since you met the Committee informally in relation to this matter, you or your officials have had ongoing contact, conversations and meetings with Employers For Childcare, which, as everybody including you acknowledges, is one of the leading authorities in respect of all this? Since the informal meeting, have you had ongoing, active meetings to assess the level of disadvantage?

Mr Bell: Every day, we are looking at where there are levels of disadvantage and working with groups. I have met Employers For Childcare in the past. We have done functions together with them, and we will certainly do that in the future.

My response to Mr Lyttle is that we need to be clear that OFMDFM did not initially have responsibility for childcare. The childcare vouchers were a UK tax scheme for which we did not have policy responsibility. OFMDFM stepped in. I do not mind constructive criticism, but the constructive part of it is important. If we are to deliver proper childcare into the future for the society that we all live in and that Northern Ireland needs, we want to take a constructive approach to it. OFMDFM effectively stepped into what was a vacuum on the issue, and we have taken the lead on coordinating the strategy. It was a strategy that was not being pursued by others. That is why we stepped in to take this part forward.

As I have said, we understand that, under the old scheme, a number of people were left out. The people who were left out were those whose employer was not part of the scheme and the 1,600 people who are self-employed today. Mr Spratt made the point extremely well, particularly about the construction industry, where people were part of larger companies and are now working on their own very successfully. The good news of today is that we are offering those people something that they never had before — a 20% contribution to their childcare costs that they could not access before. We are offering it to people who were working for employers who did not have it before either.

Mr Spratt: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Bell: Yes.

Mr Spratt: I think that the Minister mentioned the figure of 16,000: would that be 116,000, as opposed to 16,000?

Mr Bell: Sorry, yes. I think we had 111,000 five years ago, and today it sits at 116,000. Apologies for that oversight on my part.

We know that 80% will be better off, and we want that to happen. We also know that everybody who is currently on the scheme can stay on the scheme, but it is for the potential people in the future — the 20% — that we will see what we can do to mitigate the effects.

It is now time to make a decision on the matter. The issues have been well aired in the time that has been available to us. The whole House should take a moment to consider what we are actually agreeing to in this legislative consent motion. We are saying to working families here that they will not lose out on valuable support with childcare costs when the employer-supported childcare is closed to new entrants. We are sending out a clear message that working families will not lose out when that is closed.

Mr Lyttle: I thank the Minister for giving way. Will he respond to the call for a wholesale public awareness campaign between now and the introduction of the new scheme to ensure that anyone who has not taken up the childcare voucher scheme is aware of the opportunity to do so?

Mr Bell: That is a very valuable point that Mr Lyttle has made. I will certainly put my shoulder to the wheel, the Office of the First and deputy First Minister will do so, and I will ask all Departments to do exactly the same to ensure that people are aware. The reality is that we will provide childcare for more people and bring more people into the system. I want to emphasise that tax-free childcare will have greater local uptake than the current employer-supported childcare scheme. In addition, the local benefits to parents —

Mr Wilson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Bell: Just a second. The local benefits to parents from the tax-free scheme are expected to exceed the total local benefit to parents under the employer-supported childcare scheme. I give way to Mr Wilson.

Mr Wilson: Thank you for giving way. Will the Minister accept that the main thrust, however, is not what happens between now and when the new measures are in place but, even more importantly, what happens after the new measures are in place? There will still be choices for people to make. For example, people who are coming off benefit and going on to the new tax scheme, with the 25% subsidy that they can get, will have a lot of detailed calculations that they need help with. The emphasis at Westminster appears to be that that is where the real help and the real attention of government should be.

Mr Bell: The Member makes a valuable point. Mr Wilson is in the uniquely valuable position of being able to sit in both Houses and take this legislation through. Mr Wilson is correct that it is about making sure that all working families are aware of the 20% that is available to them after the Bill receives Royal Assent. As I said in my opening remarks, I believe that it is already up and running on the HMRC website that people can put in their details and see, from the level of complexity that is there, how they can benefit and how they can work.

It will give parents information — and remember that this is open to lone parents and couples — as to what they can receive. Also, not just parents but others can pay into the account that is opened and have it topped up 20% to the value of £2,000 per child in any one financial year.

I re-emphasise what Mr Lyttle said: it is not only us who will want to create an awareness of this — and every MLA will want to put it out in their constituency office and everything else — but primarily it is the job of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to promote its scheme UK-wide. We will certainly try to ensure that it does that.

So, the new scheme will be available to all working families. We want to get out the message that it is not just for those whose employers participate in the scheme, because that is a critical change. The scheme is going to be available to all working families, regardless of whether an employer participates in the scheme. Secondly, as I have said, it is open to parents who are self-employed, and it will take into account family size. I think that the House will want to collectively ensure that working families here are able to access the financial support that is to be made available to working parents in England, Scotland and Wales. I therefore commend the motion to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Business Committee has agreed to group these five motions into one debate. Following the debate, I will put the question on each of the motions.

Mr McElduff: I beg to move

Mr McElduff: Go raibh maith agat. An chéad rud ba mhaith liom a rá go bhfuil mé sásta na cúig rún impí chun neamhniú seo a mholadh. I am pleased to move the five prayer of annulment motions, which essentially seek to annul and pray against statutory rules 2014/230 to 2014/234, inclusive. In essence, Sinn Féin is resolutely opposing any legislation, or enforcement of such legislation, that would introduce and preside over any charge for the use of the road network in the North of Ireland by heavy goods vehicles from the rest of this island. That is, principally, our case set out in one sentence.

However, I will elaborate. I am sure that others in the debate will emphasise a wider European context for the introduction and enforcement of this legislation. They will point to the fact that this levy has come about as a result of a European directive. They may also say that this levy is an excepted matter and that responsibility for its implementation rests with the Department for Transport in Britain. That may be so, but I emphasise that the Assembly is not powerless in this matter, and it is a fact that our Department of the Environment can withhold its consent, because, for this bad law to come into force, the Department of the Environment is required to introduce secondary legislation. It is this secondary legislation that we are praying against today in the Chamber, essentially in order to prevent bad law.

The HGV levy is one of the most regressive taxes ever introduced here. It fails spectacularly to take into account the particular circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the context of all-island trade and North/South cooperation — I gcomhthéacs comhoibriú trasteorann — economic development, business and commerce, this levy is an absolute nonsense as far as the island of Ireland is concerned.

By way of further technical explanation, I should outline that the secondary legislation deals with financial deposits, penalties and powers to require payment when a vehicle is found using a road in the North without having paid the appropriate levy. The Road Traffic Offenders (Additional Offences) Order (NI) 2014 creates the so-called offence of using roads here in the North without having paid the levy. The Road Traffic (Fixed Penalty) (Offences) (Amendment) Order (NI) 2014 refers to the fixed penalty that should be applied to this so-called offence. I say "so-called" because not in my wildest imagination could I contrive a scenario in which a haulier from Donegal drove into and did business in County Tyrone, Fermanagh or Derry being worthy of any such charge or fixed penalty.

The Road Traffic (Fixed Penalty) (Amendment) Order (NI) 2014 inserts the amount of £300 for the fixed penalty, while the Road Traffic (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Amendment) Order (NI) 2014 and the Road Traffic (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) (Amendment) Order (NI) 2014 constitute further parts of this legislation relating to the amount set for the financial penalty deposit etc. At this point, I want to thank Suzie Cave from the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe). Suzie provided Members with a very helpful briefing note outlining the technical content of these statutory rules.

The Department for Transport (DfT) in Britain is not listening and has not listened. Crucially, this legislation — this bad law — requires the approval of the Assembly. We must not give it. It should not come as a great surprise that the Department for Transport has not listened at any stage of the process. It did not listen to us or to the lobbyists from the north-west and Coleraine about the need to retain Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) jobs there. It did not care a damn about jobs in Coleraine. It is a long distance from the south-east of England to Coleraine, and nowhere was that distance more keenly felt than in the DVA jobs debate.

The DfT did not listen to us. It did not listen to Minister Attwood in his time. It did not listen to what Minister Durkan or Minister Varadkar had to say about this HGV levy. DfT did not listen to any Minister on this island regarding attempts to secure, for example, an exemption for the A5 or any other measure that might mitigate the impact of this levy. In the Chamber, an Ulster Unionist MLA — I think that it was you, Mr Deputy Speaker — described as very reasonable the notion that there could or should be an exemption for the A5. That was never my position; of course there should be an exemption for the A5, but we want an exemption for all roads in the North because of the unique geography of the island of Ireland.

You said yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you felt that seeking an exemption for the A5 was a reasonable objective. However, DfT did not listen to any attempt to secure what some might describe as a fairer and better deal, never mind to objections to the levy in principle. One of the reasons why DfT is not listening and has not listened is that it consistently exhibits no understanding whatsoever of the more complex issues that affect the island of Ireland, which is on the edge of Europe and which has two separate economies and tax regimes — all on a small island with 6·5 million people. Of course, everybody knows that, on the island of Ireland, the economies are intertwined. There is an interdependency, linkages and relationships that have been built up over decades that can easily be damaged.

No one in this Assembly — not even, I suggest, the most integrationist unionist — can argue that this part of the world is any more than an afterthought for politicians in the south-east of England. British policies are not designed to cater for the needs of the people of the North of Ireland; they are made in Westminster for the benefit of the 97% that constitutes the British economy and not for the 3% in the North of Ireland. This levy is but one example of legislation that has been enacted in Westminster but which is not fit for purpose here.

Members will know that exemptions are being allowed for seven kilometres of the roads network close to Cullaville and Clones, but this has been described in the past, quite accurately, as rather pitiful in the larger scheme of things. The logic of the A5 speaks for itself, given the geographical location and peripherality of County Donegal. Failure to secure any exemption for the A5 has compounded and will compound Donegal's plight. I commend the Minister for his attempts to secure an exemption for the A5, but they fell on deaf ears. I expect consensus on that.

It is a fact — I stand to be corrected — that the only point of exit out of Donegal that does not involve the Six Counties is Ballyshannon bridge. It is also worth noting that the Irish Government have invested and pledged significant funding to the A5 upgrade and to others on the island of Ireland.

As an MLA, I was invited to and attended a meeting in Letterkenny in February 2014 on a Sunday afternoon. Although that might not have suited everybody, I went along. At the meeting in the Swilly Group building in Letterkenny, I listened to impassioned arguments from local hauliers. Later that same February, I facilitated, with others, a group of those hauliers and their cross-party elected representatives to meet Minister Durkan in this very Building. I was grateful to the Minister because he responded at short notice, attended and lent an ear to the hauliers who came along that day.

The British Minister responsible for pushing and driving this agenda is Stephen Hammond. He offered up as a point of contact — a conduit for this message — Parliamentary Under-Secretary Robert Goodwill.

Mr Weir: Pause for effect.

Mr McElduff: If ever there was a misnamed official or elected representative — call him what you will — it is Robert Goodwill. Did you ever hear the like of it in your life? When goodwill was called for, all we got was bad will and bad faith. I suggest that Robert Goodwill head off and change his name by deed poll because it does not reflect his contribution to the HGV levy. He showed no goodwill at any stage; it is a total misnomer. He showed no good faith at any stage in the proceedings.

Of course, my main point is perhaps that it is in the gift of the Assembly to withhold consent to this bad law.

I appeal to all parties in the Chamber to unite to prevent this bad law from coming into force. This is not simply about compliance with Westminster; it is about choice. We can reject these proposals and collectively work to ensure that the British Government use their power in the legislation to exempt all roads. That would have a minimal impact on the British Exchequer but would have the maximum impact on protecting the North/South economy. That is our local economy, and we in the North will lose out if it is damaged. We must remember that it is our local economy that receives the biggest return from the island economy and that our small- and medium-sized enterprises are reliant on cross-border trade.

I genuinely do not want to engage in point scoring, but I call on the Minister and his party to vote according to the spirit of their earlier contributions to the debate on this issue. Minister Durkan, to his credit, has previously expressed concern, and, I think, still will, about the negative impact that this is all going to have on economic cooperation between North and South. He has previously stated that, coming from the north-west himself, he is particularly well placed to understand how this negative impact will be experienced most by the already hard-pressed haulage industry and SMEs along the border corridor. He publicly stated that the British Government did not give proper consideration to the island of Ireland's unique position when setting out to transpose this legislation.

It is worth noting that there was not unanimity in the Environment Committee on the matter, although, disappointingly, the Minister's party colleagues voted to enable the DOE here to enforce the levy. I call on those Members to reconsider their position and to vote in accordance with these —

Mr Wilson: Will the Member give way?

Mr McElduff: — five prayer of annulment motions.

I will certainly give way in about half a minute, Sammy. You just watch the clock and count back from 30.

That was hugely disappointing. I invite all Members, including the Member for East Antrim, to join with me on this one. I ask others to remain true to their earlier statements on the levy and vote logically with us on these five prayer of annulment motions. Without prejudice to the fact that you may be down to speak later, I will certainly give way to you, Mr Wilson.

Mr Wilson: I listened to the Member's whole speech. He has not actually addressed the issue. How does he justify that lorry drivers in Northern Ireland have to make a contribution towards the upkeep of roads in Northern Ireland for the damage that lorries do to roads in Northern Ireland, yet he says that lorry drivers from outside Northern Ireland, who have the same impact on roads, should have the free use of roads? Where is the logic in that? Where is the justice or the fairness for transport organisations in Northern Ireland when they are faced with people coming from the Irish Republic who do not have to deal with the same costs?

Mr McElduff: Thanks very much, Mr Wilson. Can you imagine the Southern authorities deciding to impose a tit-for-tat reciprocal countermeasure?

Mr Wilson: They do; they have toll roads.

Mr McElduff: You are not comparing like with like. Those are universal; they are on the M50 in and around Dublin. Everybody knows that. It is not for what they might call out-of-state visitors. Just imagine for a second that there was a tit-for-tat reciprocal measure.

This morning, I spoke on the telephone to a Donegal haulier who regularly leaves his base in Lifford to travel the few short miles to Dunnamanagh, where he collects sand and gravel. Does Mr Wilson seriously expect Mr Christy Gallagher from Lifford to pay £1,000 a year for collecting sand and gravel in Dunnamanagh and taking it back to Lifford? If he does, he is more foolish than I thought.

Mr Wilson: I thank the Member for giving way, and since he asked a question, I am quite happy to answer it. I cannot understand why hauliers in Northern Ireland, who are bringing sand and gravel from Lough Neagh to building sites, have to pay the cost of travelling on the roads. I find it most bizarre that the Member should be arguing for people who are not his constituents in the Republic and against his constituents who operate haulage firms in his locality. He wants those constituents to have to pay a cost and for their competitors to be exempt from doing so. That is a strange kind of representation.

Mr McElduff: I will not go into it now, but the Republic has yet to be established. I will put that to the one side.

You seem to be very myopic on the whole question of cross-border cooperation in trade and commerce. You — the economics teacher. I wish you well.

The Irish Government have invested in the roads network in the North, and the haulage taxation bills in the South are significantly higher than they are in the North. However, I will say this —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: May I just interrupt you a second, given this little exchange? It is important that all remarks — all remarks — are addressed through the Chair to keep good order and ensure that this does not get out of hand. It is a very good debate, and it is good-humoured at the moment.

Mr McElduff: I agree with you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I will speak to the Member in the third person singular from this point onwards.

I invite all Members to consider this truth: the cost of the levy will definitely be passed on to local consumers. There is a myth that the imposition and enforcement of the levy in the North will not have any impact on taxpayers or ratepayers in the North. That is a myth.

Mr Weir: Will the Member give way?

Mr McElduff: This is probably the last time that I will give way in the next five or six minutes.

Mr Weir: I am very grateful —

Mr Wilson: You are not going to go on for another five or six minutes, are you?

Mr Weir: Yes, suddenly I see my life disappearing before my eyes. I thank the Member, nevertheless, for giving way.

The Member is being slightly short-sighted when he talks about the levy being passed on. Clearly, any levy will ultimately be passed on. If the Member got his way and the Government across the water completely defied Europe and made some form of pure exemption so that there would not be any levy on anyone in Northern Ireland, an economic cost would be passed on to the rest of us. Inevitably, the Government would seek to recoup that from the block grant.

You would be in a situation in which the levy would be levied in a different way, and the burden would simply be placed on much-stressed public services. As it is, we found it very tough to reach a Budget, so if we were expected to find an additional pot of money, even given the level of fantasy in the Member's proposal, that would be an additional burden on services here as there would be a reduction in the amount of money that we would have to spend. It is a myth that doing this will not have economic consequences.

Mr McElduff: I thank the Member for his intervention. Later, I will refer to arrangements in the Benelux countries, which show greater flexibility than the Member was just prepared to entertain for the island of Ireland and its uniqueness.

I have no doubt that additional costs faced by hauliers will be passed on to local consumers through increased prices for the products they deliver. In a previous contribution to the Assembly, Members highlighted the statement by Mr Seamus McMahon of Linwoods, which is a company based in County Armagh. He said that he runs a large bakery, employing more than 250 staff. He said that the HGV levy could ultimately result in higher bread prices for local customers, because hauliers from the South provide the packaging and the ingredients for his business. Mr McMahon, to his credit, said that he will do everything in his power to ensure that that does not happen but that Southern hauliers would somehow have to recover the additional costs they would incur due to the levy. Hauliers, North and South, already have to pay for the cost of diesel, vehicle excise duty, driver wages, depreciation of their vehicles etc.

Huge work is being done by the two Agriculture Departments on the island, especially to grow the agrifood sector, and by the respective trade promotion Departments, not least DETI in the North and InterTradeIreland itself, to increase cross-border trade, which is already a massive contributor to both economies on the island and said to be worth £2·8 billion a year. A lot of that work would be disadvantaged by any new barriers introduced that would become new impediments to economic growth.

Speaking politically — although I do not speak for the Unionist parties — it is my understanding that both main Unionists parties are in favour of North/South economic cooperation when they deem it to be of practical benefit to all people on the island. Therefore, economic protectionism is not the way forward. If that were the chosen path — I reiterate a point I made earlier, through you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, to former Minister Wilson — the Government in the South could introduce a reciprocal measure of a tit-for-tat levy on hauliers travelling from North to South. Economic cooperation threatens no one and benefits us all.

As has been said repeatedly, the border areas have the highest rates of unemployment and deprivation, and it is there that consumers find the cost of living perhaps most burdensome of all. The crucial question that the Minister needs to answer today on behalf of DOE, and perhaps on behalf of his Executive colleague Arlene Foster, is this: has either Department carried out any significant body of research on the economic impact of the levy on smaller hauliers and single operators? If not, why proceed apace with the legislation and its enforcement without the necessary evidence base?

Local businesses, particularly SMEs, are looking to expand and find new markets. It is regrettable that business with the nearest and what should be the most accessible market is inhibited through unnecessary trade barriers such as the HGV levy, when the focus should be on removing barriers to trade. According to figures from the Department of Finance and Personnel, trade with the South accounts for 37% of the North's gross value added (GVA), which is the best measure that we have to illustrate local economic output. The British Government should use section 3 of the Act to exempt our local road system, which would be a crucial step to ensuring that we protect our local economy from this poor legislation.

At this point, I want to refer to two pieces of correspondence that I have. One comes from Mr Allan Rainey, an Ulster Unionist councillor based in Omagh. He is a very strong public representative and currently chairperson of the Irish Central Border Area Network (ICBAN), which is a cross-border partnership comprising 11 councils — six from the North and five from the South. The matter of the HGV levy is deemed by that organisation to be of huge concern. In 2012, it conducted an evidence-based socio-economic and business case for improvements to the N16/A4, from Sligo to Ballygawley, and the N2/A5, from Monaghan to Letterkenny, transport corridors.

The study supports the case that the border area performs poorly in economic terms when compared with the wider island of Ireland and that that is, at least in part, attributable to its low-quality transport infrastructure. The letter goes on, at length, to refer to the particular circumstances of the island of Ireland. For example, it talks about the fact that, in the North, roads are almost exclusively the only way in which to transport freight, as rail is limited. Of course, we had a nice wee debate yesterday in the House about the rail infrastructure from Coleraine to Derry, but many counties have been without any rail infrastructure at all since it was removed in the 1960s in one of the greatest acts of economic discrimination against the north-west that ever was applied.

Hauliers are being penalised for providing a crucial service by the only transport means possible.

Then, in light of the Irish Government's existing commitment to the upgrade of the A5, Mr Rainey has said that the people of the South of Ireland will actually be contributing to road costs in the North. Some of the geopolitical language that I use might differ from that of Mr Rainey, but I am sure that you get the point. Conditions are such that hauliers from England, Scotland and Wales will be able to come into the South of Ireland, pick up Irish goods and pay no tax whatsoever.

There are a lot of points made in this ICBAN correspondence, which was addressed to elected representatives by Mr Rainey some time ago, that are very useful in the context of this debate. It states that, in adding to this charge:

We just cannot ignore evidence like this. It is irresponsible for this to proceed and for people to ignore the evidence.

The British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly met in October. One of the committees of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly deals with EU affairs. In all, there are four committees in that structure. The European Union affairs committee looked at the issue, and Robert Walter MP and Joe McHugh TD said quite similar things. For example, Robert Walter said:

They refer jointly to the A5 as a special case, but, once again, we are reminded that DfT was not listening at any stage. Why should we dignify its deafness to us on this matter by approving this legislation today? I appeal to all Members to give this the most careful consideration and not to endorse bad law.

In my conversation with one of the leading Donegal hauliers this morning, he said that hauliers were not opposed to paying a levy at port entries in England, Scotland or Wales but that there is an issue because of the uniqueness of the island of Ireland and the north-west of Ireland; for example, the geographical peripherality of Donegal and how it feeds into the economy of the north-west on both sides of the border. They have also demonstrated that, when they arrive in Britain, in England, Scotland or Wales, there is a willingness to comply with payment.

Very interestingly, on 30 October, in was stated in a commercial motor truckers magazine that the British Government's initial target of collecting annual revenue for this levy came to a figure of £20 million. In the first six months of its implementation in Britain, it has yielded £23·4 million. The money is not ring-fenced for transport; it goes back to the British Treasury. I ask all parties in the House to think very carefully about this motion. I am not setting out to score points of a party political nature, but I ask Members to support the five prayer of annulment motions before the Assembly.

Ms Lo (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment): As Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment, I wish to set out the views of the majority of the members of the Committee. I would like to outline the work that we have carried out that has led us to form these views and resulted in agreement, by a majority vote, that this subordinate legislation should be added to the statute books of the Assembly.

Earlier this year, the Committee noted that the Department was consulting on proposals to introduce secondary legislation in relation to the UK HGV Road User Levy Act 2013, and we requested an oral briefing when that consultation exercise had been completed. The Committee was aware that the key objective of the levy is to ensure a fairer arrangement for UK hauliers, who have to pay charges or tolls in most European countries while non-UK registered HGVs had not, until the introduction of the levy, paid to use the road network in the UK. The Committee also understood that the DVA was to act as the primary enforcement agency in Northern Ireland and, alongside the PSNI, would enforce the charge and penalties for non-payment.

On 20 February 2014, departmental officials briefed the Committee on the responses they had received to the consultation. They advised the Committee that the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association — organisations representing the majority of Northern Ireland’s hauliers — were broadly supportive of the Department’s proposals but that —

Mr Elliott: I thank the Member for giving way. I am sure that she would acknowledge that, if the prayer of annulment were to be successful, it could place local road hauliers in Northern Ireland at a significant financial disadvantage.

Ms Lo: I agree with you. Essentially, it is about creating a level playing field for everyone.

As I said, the two associations were broadly supportive of the Department's proposals. However, other respondents objected to the level of enforcement proposed against hauliers from the Republic of Ireland.

The Committee was subsequently contacted by the Donegal Truckers, who believed that the levy would adversely impact on the high level of business that takes place between North and South. Members agreed to pass the correspondence to the Department for its comments on the issues raised by the truckers. In his response, the Minister stated that, although the levy is an excepted matter, he had made robust representations to the UK Department for Transport about increasing the extent of exempted routes in Northern Ireland. He confirmed that he did not intend to move the secondary legislation until he had received and considered the reply to his most recent correspondence. The Committee asked to be kept updated on the outcome of that correspondence and on his discussions with the Irish Minister for Transport on the same issue. The Committee also sought clarification on how the HGV road user levy is being implemented, including any provisions being made for exemptions, and on the danger of infraction of the Eurovignette directive.

The Department’s reply, which was considered at the Committee meeting of 6 May 2014, stated that it did not consider that its position put the UK at any significant risk of infraction. It also confirmed that all Northern Ireland hauliers had been paying the levy, as it was being collected in combination with vehicle excise duty, and that significant numbers of Irish hauliers had paid the levy via the online payment scheme. Nonetheless, members felt that departmental officials were in a somewhat invidious position as it appeared that they were able to draw drivers’ attention to the levy but not to enforce penalties for non-payment.

When the Department initially brought forward SL1 proposals for the rules in June 2014, the Committee agreed that there were still issues to be resolved before the legislation was put in place and, accordingly, deferred further consideration until the commencement of the new session in September 2014.

Departmental officials returned to brief the Committee on 11 September. They emphasised that the levy itself is a tax and, as such, is an excepted matter outside the powers of the Assembly. The Committee had no role in scrutinising either the scope or the amount to be charged. They highlighted how the Eurovignette directive requires that, if any such levy is in place, compliance must be enforced throughout the UK by the Department of the Environment directly or by agents of the Department for Transport. DfT is prepared to fund the cost of enforcement by paying for equipment and additional personnel. The Committee believes that this would mitigate, albeit to a very small extent, the recent job losses suffered by the DVA.

The Committee raised the issue of the impact of the levy on small businesses close to the border. Officials explained that the current Minister and his predecessor had made repeated representations to DfT to extend the exemptions for Northern Ireland roads and, in particular, to include the A5, but those had been unsuccessful. Officials also indicated that the costs of paying the levy were unlikely to be unduly punitive, even for small businesses, with the annual cost likely to be around £85 for vehicles up to 25 tons.

The Committee asked officials for further information on the Department's planned approach to enforcement. This is likely to take the form of checkpoints, both random and intelligence-led, and, although it will be cost-neutral, it will offer DVA officials the opportunity to widen compliance checks to include all aspects of road traffic law, such as roadworthiness and drivers' hours. The Committee believed that that was a positive aspect and welcomed any measures that would result in improved safety on Northern Ireland's roads.

With the exception of the three members who have proposed the prayers of annulment today, the Committee accepted that the Minister had no real choice in this matter and that he had strenuously put the case for a wider exemption for cross-border roads, but to no avail. The majority of members also accepted that the result of refusing to agree these statutory rules would be that DfT would put in place its own enforcement measures, as it is legally bound to do, and that the Department would lose out both on this additional funding and on the opportunity to carry out wider compliance tests.

For the reasons I have outlined and after detailed and lengthy scrutiny, the Committee for the Environment agreed that it was content for the rules to be made.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, if I may say a few words as a member of the Alliance Party —

Mr Wilson: Will the Member give way?

Ms Lo: Yes.

Mr Wilson: In her last point, the Chairman indicated that DfT would put in place its own arrangements to ensure compliance. Maybe she could spell out exactly what those arrangements would be. It would be interesting to see whether Sinn Féin would rather see Departments based in Westminster starting to enforce here in Northern Ireland, rather than having the issues dealt with locally. Maybe she could outline that for us.

Ms Lo: I will not speculate on which agency DfT would employ to enforce it, but it will not be one in the Department of the Environment. It would not give DVA staff the potential to make available that additional funding.

On behalf of my party and in line with what I said as Chair of the Committee for the Environment, I oppose the motions. I believe that the current and previous Environment Ministers made reasonable efforts to argue our case for more exemptions, but, ultimately, the decision lay with DfT. The fact is that the longer we fall out of step with UK-wide legislation, the more we lose out on additional funding to improve road safety.

Mrs Cameron: As Deputy Chair of the Environment Committee and a DUP member of the Committee, I oppose all five motions tabled by the party opposite to annul the regulations.

All these statutory rules are to enable the enforcement of the HGV Road User Levy Act 2013. The UK Parliament passed the Act on 28 February 2013, providing legislation that introduces a specific time-based charge for the use of the UK road network by heavy goods vehicles weighing 12 tons and over. The key objective of the new law is to ensure a fairer arrangement for UK hauliers. Currently, foreign-registered HGVs do not pay to use the road network in the UK, whereas UK-registered HGVs pay charges or tolls in most other European countries.

The levy is an excepted matter under the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and the responsibility for its implementation rests with the Department for Transport. However, the Department of the Environment is required to introduce some limited new secondary legislation relating to the HGV Road User Levy Act 2013 on to the Northern Ireland statute book. As part of that process, the Department of the Environment consulted on those requirements.

It is worth noting that the levy received support from the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association, which represent the majority of road freight operators in Northern Ireland. Their support extends to the proposals for the secondary legislation that is needed to allow the effective operation of the levy in Northern Ireland. This is to the benefit of the enforcement authorities and hauliers, and it ensures that Northern Ireland hauliers are not financially disadvantaged compared with British hauliers through adjustments to vehicle weight bands.

It must also be worth noting that the levy is paid by many in Northern Ireland already. The motions today ask us not to enforce it. They ask us to let others pay the levy and adhere to the law that already stands in Northern Ireland but not to enforce it on those who do not pay.

By way of background, on 11 September, departmental officials briefed the Environment Committee, and I will quickly run through some of the information that was given. The levy can be paid daily, weekly, monthly or annually. The fees depend on the time covered and the weight of the vehicle. The maximum charge for the largest vehicles is £10·00 a day; for smaller vehicles of up to 25 tons, it is £1·70 per day. The largest annual charge is £1,000 a year for five-axle vehicles or £640 for six-axle vehicles. Those charges are set to reflect the road wear created by the number of axles, weight and so on.

As already mentioned, the levy is a tax, so it is an excepted matter under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Ministers past and present, supported by their Irish counterparts, have made representations to the Department for Transport focusing on exemptions for particular routes, for example the A5. As the Chair of the Committee mentioned, those representations were not successful. The proposer from the party opposite said that some exemptions would not be acceptable. They want every road to be exempted.

The benefits of the Department of the Environment enforcing the levy include having a coordinated approach to hauliers by having one enforcement body looking after all HGV matters, including weight, drivers' hours and roadworthiness, as well as the levy. As has been alluded to, the Department for Transport is quite happy to come to Northern Ireland to enforce the levy if need be. So, the choice that we have today is not luxurious.

The Department for Transport is making funding available for additional enforcement officers for this work, which will slightly mitigate the loss of staff caused by the centralisation of vehicle licensing in Swansea. The DfT is also providing funding for cameras and other equipment to allow for enforcement of the levy. That equipment can also be used for the enforcement of other road-traffic offences.

On the day of the Committee meeting in September we were told that, of the five SL1s presented, one creates the offence on the Northern Ireland statute book of not paying the levy, two add that to the list of fixed-penalty notice offences and set the amount for non-payment, and the other two set it on the list of financial penalty deposit offences and set the amount. By law, the levy has been payable by all HGVs using UK roads since 1 April 2014.

The Committee proceeded to a vote on the rules and voted in favour of them by eight to three, with all Sinn Féin members voting against.

I am at a loss as to why Sinn Féin opposes this change. Given that this will level the playing field for a substantial number of businesses that will be assured that overseas companies are no longer being given a free run on Northern Ireland's roads, it strikes me as somewhat unbalanced that, on the one hand, Sinn Féin is prepared to accept bail-outs and parliamentary expenses from Westminster, yet dogmatically rejects all other aspects of parliamentary business even when, just like this piece of legislation or the welfare reform package or the work of the National Crime Agency, they are necessary measures and should be implemented without further delay.

Mr Eastwood: I do not propose to speak for too long. Some people seem to want to make this a very long debate: I cannot imagine why.

It is important to bring a bit of reality to the discussion. We can all bring motions and, sometimes, we can all be accused of politicising issues and hiding the fact that there is a reality there and that, sometimes, things are not even within our control and just have to be done. So, we need to be clear for anybody who is watching — especially Donegal hauliers or people who have an interest in this — and we need to be honest with them.

This debate is not about whether we think that this levy is a good idea: from our perspective, we do not think that it is. It is not about whether this tax should be collected: the British Government are going to collect it anyway. It is about whether there will be a fixed penalty at the roadside for not paying the levy or whether you would have to go through court proceedings. That is what this debate is about; it is not about us being able to stop the levy coming in.

This Minister, the previous Minister, Minister Attwood, and any SDLP Member who has spoken on the issue has said consistently that we think that it does not make sense that the levy be introduced. However, the bottom line is that this is an excepted matter; it is a tax issue. Sinn Féin is constantly talking, and it is good to have that debate, about the need for more tax-varying powers for the North. We do not have them; we do not have control over tax issues in the North. It is not up to us, unfortunately. Yet, we could say that we are not going to enforce this legislation, this levy or this tax but that we will let the British Government do it. We will let the people that the British Government employ do it, and we will not take the benefit of the cash and the jobs that would come to enable us to do it. If there is any ray of sunshine in this, we should grasp it. We should grasp the couple of jobs that we will get out of it and the money that we will get for the camera equipment that will also help with other road traffic issues.

There is no choice here. The Minister fought the battle. The Minister in the South, Leo Varadkar, fought the battle. We have not been successful. The British Government are bringing this in. The bottom line in all this is that, for all of us who are pro-European — I am not sure where everybody is on that, because it changes quite often — or even the people who are not pro-European, the fact of the matter is that, when a member state brings in a levy like this, the European Union insists that it is enforced. It does not have to bring in the levy, but when it does bring it in and in this way, the European Union insists that it is enforced and that the levy or tax is collected. I have not yet heard how we can do this differently.

I am from Derry. I understand the impact of the border on the economic life of our city and, in particular, of north-east Donegal. I understand what the border has done for our people. It has been an economic disaster. But that is not the question today. That is a question that some of us will continue to debate for decades to come; hopefully, not too many. This is a matter of fact and of what we can do and what power we have to actually effect change. The bottom line is that we have no power to stop this legislation coming in, and we have to be honest with the people who will suffer as a result of it. We do not have authority on this issue, so people should stop pretending that we do. In the proposer's very long speech, I did not hear one answer on how we can change this, stop it or prevent the British Government from implementing the legislation and enforcing the levy. It just is not possible.

I reassert the fact, and I am sure that the Minister will do so too, that we do not believe that it is good to try to hinder cross-border activity or cross-border trade. We need to break down all the barriers to that. However, the truth of the matter is that this is outwith our control. The Department for Transport in London will collect this levy whether we like it or not. We have heard it enough times now that we should be listening; that is the truth of it. This Assembly is powerless to change that, unfortunately. I will end with that.

Mrs Overend: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party to oppose the prayers of annulment proposed by Sinn Féin Members. As my colleague Tom Elliott, who was on the Environment Committee before me, said at the time, the heavy goods vehicle levy will:

The Ulster Unionist Party supports our local Northern Ireland hauliers, who are, until this levy is enforced, operating at a disadvantage.

These statutory rules give the Department of the Environment the powers to enforce the levy and the associated penalty. We are mindful that this levy will have a greater impact here in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the UK, given the unique position of Northern Ireland in having the only land border with a foreign country. We are also keen to ensure that the levy is not passed directly on to consumers, but early indications show that that has not been the case. At least I understand that the vehicle excise duty has been reduced at the same time as the levy was introduced and that both are paid at the same time in one transaction.

I wonder whether the Environment Minister, when responding to the debate, could inform us how many operators from the Republic of Ireland have taken up the opportunity to set up registered accounts, whereby it is easy for them to log on and pay the levy. Can he also tell us how many hauliers the Department of the Environment is aware of that have refused to pay the levy so far?

The primary legislation that introduced the levy uses the provision of a European directive, as was said this afternoon. In turn, that requires member states to take all necessary measures to ensure compliance with any levies introduced. Therefore, that European law requires enforcement of the HGV road user levy across the UK.

I will make two points about the way in which Sinn Féin is handling the legislation. By praying against the statutory regulations, it is inviting the possibility of infraction fines from Europe. I would have thought that that party might have learned its lesson following the infraction fines for farm maps through the Department of Agriculture and after coming within a whisker of them for Strangford lough. Then again, if the Department of the Environment does not enforce the levy, the Department for Transport will step in to enforce it. As other Members suggested, for a party that is keen to support devolution, it is a rare proposition for them to support and promote it.

To conclude, the proposer said that there is no tit-for-tat measure in the Republic of Ireland, but Members know that toll roads exist in the Republic of Ireland, which is that country's policy for financing its roads system. If I travel into the Republic of Ireland, I will pay those road tolls just like any other person from Northern Ireland travelling in the Republic of Ireland. Likewise, it is equally fair that, as Councillor Allan Rainey suggested, those heavy goods vehicles that use the UK roads should make a contribution to UK roads.

Mr Boylan: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Overend: Go ahead.

Mr Boylan: I appreciate the Member talking about toll roads in the South, but here is the reality of it: that is by choice. You can travel on a number of roads in the South, but if you want to use a toll road, you pay the toll. That is a simple argument for anybody travelling in the South, so the Member should be mindful of that: it is by choice.

Mrs Overend: I thank the Member for his intervention.

I will continue as I began a few minutes ago. The heavy goods vehicle levy will bring equality among haulage businesses in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and across Europe. We in the Ulster Unionist Party support its implementation and the penalties for those who break the law that has been in place since April this year. We support Northern Ireland hauliers, and we oppose the prayer of annulment.

Mr Weir: I will not detain the House too long. I hear a "hear, hear" from my left-hand side, and perhaps the Member beside me should take some of his own medicine.

As a member of the Environment Committee, I, like others, have been through all the arguments on this issue, and I oppose the prayer of annulment for a range of reasons. The last Member to speak and others mentioned the need for a level playing field — forgive the pun — and that should be the case. I listened to the proposer of the motion. He said that the Republic had not yet been achieved, but it is clear that the honourable Member for West Tyrone sees himself more as the TD for Donegal South-West than he does for West Tyrone. Given that our roads are used, it would create a situation of there not being a level playing field across the border. Indeed, it would provide an advantage to the Republic of Ireland that Northern Ireland hauliers do not have. We should operate on the basis of the much-cherished ideal of equality. Whatever else can be argued about this case, that needs to be embraced.

Members mentioned toll roads. Ultimately, there are alternative routes that anybody can take in any set of circumstances. From that point of view, there are opportunity costs, in the same way as, for example, when you travel to Dublin, you can avoid the toll roads and take other routes. While I am not somebody who generally believes in the virtues of taxation, there is at least a logic that says that the user should pay, so there is logic behind the levy.

There is a slightly schizophrenic quality to the proposer of the motion, in that I am not quite sure whether he sees himself as a TD for Donegal or as the Northern Ireland equivalent of Nigel Farage. It seemed that he was holding back the tide coming in from Europe and suggesting that, in some way, we could simply be defiant. However much some of us may, at times, want to close our eyes and pretend that the European Union does not exist, the reality is that it is there through the directives. I do not know whether the Member will be leaving the Sinn Féin Benches and joining Mr McNarry as a new member of UKIP, but we have seen his Euroscepticism today in his saying that, in some way, we should be some form of odd special case to which European law does not apply.

Mr Flanagan: I thank the Member for giving way. He might be interested to learn that, ahead of the recent elections, a full-page advertisement was carried in all our regional papers saying that, if you vote for UKIP, it will give us our country back. I am more than happy to support David McNarry in that regard.

Mr Weir: From that point of view, I appreciate that there is a latter-day conversion to UKIP.

Mr A Maginness: It is not surprising.

Mr Weir: It is not surprising, as the Member indicates. One feels that perhaps, as regards joining UKIP, people could even be better educated on the name of golf tournaments, for example. That might be helpful, and joining another party might lead to a greater level of education for some Members and perhaps even to them learning to count.

The reality is that we have a European directive. As Members, including Mr Eastwood, indicated, it is then an excepted matter, and all that we are doing through this debate is potentially making a token protest and pretending that we can oppose this. One might question the length of some of the speeches that have been made and, indeed, the motivation behind that, and it seems fairly clear that, given the political realities of this, it seems more of an attempt from the party opposite simply to try to embarrass the SDLP and the Minister than it is to make a genuine case. It seems that that is the principal motivation. We are not in a position to stop this, and, consequently, it is a futile and wrong gesture for us to vote against the proposals that are in front of us. Therefore, we will be opposing the prayer of annulment on that basis.

Whatever one feels about the merits of the levy itself, the repercussions have been abundantly clear. I quite often find myself in disagreement with the Minister, but he has taken a fairly straightforward, obvious and correct approach to this. He made his reservations clear and went with the Minister from the Irish Republic to lobby the Department for Transport. We should treat this on its merits and not simply see it as some sort of tit for tat because of the way in which Coleraine was treated over the DVA. We have to look at what is there. It is abundantly clear that as strong a case as possible was made, but we cannot simply be ourselves alone on this issue. We cannot have some level of exemption that does not apply in the rest of Europe.

Although I missed some of the proposer's speech, I was intrigued to hear him say, "Ireland is a unique example, but here is how we can perhaps follow Benelux". There seems to be a contradiction in that. The Minister undoubtedly made the best case possible and fought as hard as he could, but, at some stage, reality has to dawn that this is European directive with an exemption and that it is an excepted matter because it relates to taxation. We do not have any other choice, and, consequently, let us stop the posturing, oppose the prayer of annulment and put through what has to be put through.

Mr Flanagan: I thank the Member for giving way. I want to take him back to his comments about a level playing field. Our fundamental opposition to this is not that a tax is being imposed on people who are driving lorries. The principal objection to it lies in the fact that you are charging people who are crossing the border. If a tax were to be introduced that applied to everybody, and hauliers in the North or in England did not get a £1,000 reduction on their annual excise duty on a vehicle and other road users had to pay that, it would be fair.

This is not a stick for Sinn Féin to beat the SDLP with, no matter what you think. It is not about that at all. If it were, Mr McElduff's opening contribution would have been an awful lot more political. This is about trying to create a level playing field. Members from the unionist parties have compared the imposition of a £1,000-a-year levy only on hauliers to cross the border to a toll that applies on the new major roads in the South and that everybody pays. Therefore, if lorry drivers or car users based in the South want to use a toll road in the South, they are not exempt from that tax. Everybody has to pay that. It is a fair taxation across everybody. If the tax were to be introduced for all hauliers that are using the roads, it would be fair, and everybody would pay it.

What this is doing is distorting —

Mr Weir: Will the Member give way?

Mr Flanagan: I will. It is distorting the market and having a serious impact on hauliers, the people who work for them and, ultimately, the people who get goods and services using those hauliers.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Your interventions should be brief.

Mr Weir: For one strange moment, it seemed that there would almost be intervention to an intervention. I appreciate that other points will be made. This is about creating a level playing field. The reality is that, if this is not passed, hauliers from a particular part of the island of Ireland — whatever way you want to put it — will be advantaged over others. This is about providing some level of a level playing field.

I am not, generally speaking, a fan of taxation, but heavy goods vehicles have a greater impact on the roads. There is a certain logic in having some degree of imposition on that, and it seems to me, certainly from the examples that have been given, that the party opposite seems more concerned about protecting hauliers in Donegal than about many of the hauliers in Northern Ireland. Secondly, despite the protestations of the Member who spoke previously, it seems to be utterly transparent that there is an attempt at a populist move to embarrass the SDLP, which, to be fair, has been left with no other choice on this. I urge the House to reject this thinly veiled attempt by Mr McElduff and others at a form of political assassination of the SDLP and, indeed, to vote for something that is inevitable and, indeed, sensible and reject the prayer of annulment.

Mr McAleer: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank my colleagues for tabling this important motion.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Please speak into the microphone.

Mr McAleer: We are on a very small island, and this is certainly perceived as an attack or a tax on trade. Along with some of my colleagues in the Assembly and in Leinster House, we have met the hauliers and got a deep appreciation of the impact that it will have on them. It has rightly been said that this is a British Government tax on Irish domestic trade. It is a tax on the trade on which we are all dependent for economic recovery. I am from a constituency that straddles the border, and we believe that placing a charge on someone to deliver goods between, say, Donegal and Dublin or, indeed, between Strabane and Donegal, which are virtually neighbours, does not make sense. If we look across the water — this is coming from the British Government — it is like charging somebody to deliver goods between Liverpool and Leeds. It really does not make sense.

The levy is ridiculous, and it is financially unviable for our local economy to subsume these charges in terms of trade or in charges to customers. The failure to make roads exempt from the levy is disappointing and reflects a lack of overall support for our local economy from the British Government. When I was reading through the notes in preparation for today's debate, I noted that the Department for Transport in Britain, when it was talking up the benefits of this, said that it was investing £6 billion in motorways and trunk roads and introducing 500 extra miles of lane capacity. We are not getting any of those benefits here. We face cuts to the Budget here by Westminster. There is no carrot here such as they are talking up across the water.

Indeed, on the broader picture, two competing economies on the island will not deliver prosperity. Taxing cross-border trade will only impede economic growth. Over a million people live along the border, and, like me, my colleague Michaela Boyle and others, they face the challenges every day. The border areas have some of the worst unemployment, the worst housing and the worst transport infrastructure, and putting a levy on border trade simply puts undue pressures on areas that are already struggling to grow.

In terms of deprivation, outside the cities of Belfast and Derry, west Tyrone fares the worst, certainly in the North. The most westerly parts of west Tyrone along the border, including the town of Strabane and along that area, have the wards with the highest levels of deprivation in west Tyrone. This will have a very adverse impact.

Mr Elliott: I thank the Member for giving way. I am not disputing what he has said about west Tyrone, because I do not have the figures. Will he accept that, if west Tyrone is one of the areas of highest deprivation, this legislation will help transport operators in west Tyrone? They will be in an unfair competition with those across the border if it is not imposed?

Mr McAleer: I fail to see how the Member can follow that argument. What will happen is that the hauliers will pass on many of the charges to customers, certainly in the west Tyrone area and other parts of the North. Importantly, if you live in areas like west Tyrone, Fermanagh and other parts, you know that there are people who live in Strabane and are employed in the South of Ireland. This will have a detrimental impact on them and the companies that employ them. I do not see the point that the Member is trying to make. The point that I was trying to make is that the border area has —

Mr McElduff: Will the Member give way?

Mr McAleer: Yes, go ahead.

Mr McElduff: I would like to address Mr Elliott. Does he have any surprise whatsoever that this letter, which lobbies for the levy not to be enforced, is written by a west Tyrone Ulster Unionist councillor representing a cross-border partnership that is partly made up of Fermanagh and Omagh district councils? It is the ICBAN partnership. It is fair to say that Tom Elliott and his party colleagues in Fermanagh and Omagh are at odds on this issue.

Mr McAleer: I welcome that intervention from my colleague from West Tyrone. I think —

Mr Elliott: Will the Member give way?

Mr McAleer: Yes, go ahead.

Mr Elliott: I am assuming —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, when Mr McElduff settles down — I assume from what he said that that letter was written on behalf of ICBAN. It was written on behalf of an organisation, and an Ulster Unionist member was part of it. From what I have heard, it was written on behalf of ICBAN. Councillor Rainey may have signed it, but members of other parties are also on ICBAN. The Ulster Unionist Party cannot be held responsible for that, but let me tell you: we are in total support of the legislation. I give you my absolute guarantee of that. We support it. I made the point in Committee that we support the legislation, and my colleague, who is now on the Committee, is supportive of it.

Mr McAleer: OK. I think that I am correct in saying that it was a unanimous decision by ICBAN.

I will get back to my point. It is important that we should be focused not on taxing cross-border trade or on enhancing division but on building cooperation. Indeed, cooperation is not new to us along the border, and we have assisted each other in many ways. Health is a good example of that. We should focus on addressing the challenge of the border and not try to reinforce it. Where we have applied joint activity to health, it provides a higher standard of care and produces better economic outcomes. It also improves the economic and physical well-being of our citizens. The point that is important for us is that we must adopt a similar approach to the economy and, indeed, to transport infrastructure.

The legislation makes provision for exempting roads in the North, and there is a reason for that. Clause 3 should be used to exempt our road system. We should not have legislation permitting the enforcement of a levy that does not assist our local economy or our people. There is a precedent for exempting roads — parts of the A3 and the A7 — but that is not enough. I know from my experience that the A5 and its feeder roads form a critical corridor that leads in and out of our constituency. It is much easier to exempt all roads in the North from this levy; it does not make sense to split the island's economy. What makes sense from an economic perspective is encouraging free movement throughout the island and exempting local roads from this British HGV levy.

The cross-border market is very important for local firms. Indeed, local firms have identified a lack of internal financial resources as a key challenge in building their business. This levy will do nothing to increase the ability of our businesses to generate finance for the local economy. It is totally prohibitive and does not cater for our unique island circumstances.

My party feels that it is in the interests of all the people, North and South, that the free movement of EU goods is enabled, North and South.

Lord Morrow: This is a very interesting debate, but it also raises the question of whether it should be taking place. There is a challenge for the rules committee of the House to look at whether it should ever have come here. At the end of the day, we cannot do anything about this. I wonder whether debating something that we know perfectly well we cannot change is the best way to spend the time of the House. It is unfortunate that the Members opposite seem to be slightly confused. I listened to Mr McAleer and Mr McElduff —

Mr McElduff: Will the Member give way?

Lord Morrow: Yes, I will in a moment or two. It seems to me that they are confused as to which side of the border they really live on. It seems that they are confused as to where their constituencies really are. I know that some of their constituencies may extend up towards the border, but they have to realise that there is a border. Yes, Mr McElduff, you wanted to say something.

Mr McElduff: Through the Principal Deputy Speaker, I just want to ask Mr Morrow if he has a clear understanding of the raison d'être of a prayer of annulment, as someone who, I think, has chaired the procedure side of the House. Surely there is validity and merit in tabling a prayer of annulment. It is a legislative tool at our disposal that we are using to try to prevent bad law. What is wrong with using a prayer of annulment? Is there something inherently wrong with doing that?

Lord Morrow: This is not legislation made in this House that we are talking about; this legislation is made elsewhere. You know that perfectly well. That is the point that I am trying to make, and I hope that you pick up on it.

When the matter was first discussed in Committee some time ago — I suspect it goes back six or nine months or thereabouts — the whole debate in relation to it was around the A5 corridor. There was a debate that was of some interest. Although I was not in support of it, nevertheless I thought it was an interesting debate that was generated. It was argued that the A5 should be exempt in some way. For the life of me, I could not understand the rationale behind it, but, nevertheless, I was prepared to listen to the debate and the discussion. However, we now hear that in fact it has moved on from that. I think Mr McElduff made it clear that he was speaking not simply about the A5 corridor but, in fact, about the whole road infrastructure here in Northern Ireland. Then he went on to say something about the uniqueness of the island of Ireland. He did not explain in any detail what the uniqueness of the island of Ireland is in relation to its road infrastructure. Maybe when he or one of his colleagues winds up, they will deal with the uniqueness of that.

Mr McElduff: Will the Member give way?

Lord Morrow: I am being very generous to you. I am beginning to get dodgy about it, but go on.

Mr McElduff: I appreciate the Member's generosity. In my contribution, I accused DfT of not listening; it appears that Maurice was not listening either. In May, this party tabled a motion in the House — I invite you to read the Hansard report of that debate — which detailed that the exemption that we sought was for all of the road network in the North of Ireland. That is not something new. I suggest that you do some reading of Hansard in either the Committee format or the plenary format.

Lord Morrow: I suggest that you do some listening. It would run a wee bit like this. I think you were an infrequent attender at the Committee at that time because you were heavily pressed and doing other things, and you prioritised, as I suppose we all do from time to time. However, I am sure there is not a member of the Committee at that time who does not know perfectly well that the debate, more or less and to a great degree, was generated around the A5. I know that it has been extended now; I hear clearly that it has been extended to all roads.

There is a bit of "Let's get a poke at the SDLP and see if we can embarrass them". I am glad to see that the SDLP has caught that on and can see clearly what the whole thing is about. Mr Eastwood hit the nail on the head. It is not often that I agree with him, but I agree with him on this one: this is not the time or the place for a bit of point scoring. It is an issue that, to all effects, is done and dusted. Those who bring the prayers of annulment here today realise that too. It is a wee bit of "We will stand up for the hauliers in Donegal". Quite frankly, you are not standing up for the hauliers here in Northern Ireland. We know that the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association support the measures. Therefore, I sincerely ask the Member this question: on whose part have those on the Sinn Féin Benches been speaking today? You are obviously thinking of your Donegal friends. Mr McElduff was at pains to point out that he spent, I think, a whole Sunday afternoon listening to what Donegal hauliers had to say. It is a pity that he did not spend time listening to what hauliers in Northern Ireland are saying. After all, believe it or not, Mr McElduff, Mr McAleer and Mr, Mrs or Miss anybody else over there, your constituencies are here in Northern Ireland, and you have some duty and responsibility to try to look after them.

My colleague made a point that I want to reinforce. A myth is being spewed out here about the charges. Remember that the charges are already in place and are being paid. It is not as though this is coming down the track in two, six or 12 months; it is here and in place now. My colleague Pamela Cameron said that the largest annual charge is £1,000 a year for five-axle vehicles or £640 for six-axle vehicles. That is not an astronomical charge.

Mr McElduff made the point — I think that I quote him correctly — that the original target was £20 million a year but that in the first six months — so he acknowledges that the charges are in place — some £23 million has been realised. I do not think that I misquote him on that, and I have no doubt that, if I am, he will say so. Therefore, we need to get a degree of reality into the debate. I make it clear that, as far as DUP Members are concerned, we will vote against the five prayer of annulment motions because we believe that to be the right thing to do.

We on these Benches are often castigated for not being the best Europeans, and I accept that. However, it is ironic to see that those who claim to be the best Europeans —

Mr A Maginness: They are not.

Lord Morrow: — are not. They are not, exactly. They are not today, anyway. When it suits, they pick and mix and pick and choose. Here is a levy, legislation or a directive — whatever terminology you want to use — from your darling Europe, on which you put so much emphasis. They say that this has to be done, but you say, "Oh no, we will stand up to them". You mentioned that the Minister across the border has also failed you. The SDLP Minister has failed you, the Dublin Minister has failed you and Europe has failed you. Everybody seems to have failed you. Why, then, do you fail yourselves? Recognise that you cannot change this. Recognise that it is in place and happening. Be honest with your Donegal freighters and tell them, "Look, we made a hoo-ha in the Assembly, but that's all we were doing. There was nothing else we could do but get up and have a bit of a barge. Really, we were shooting our arrows at Minister Durkan, who happens to come from a border constituency also".

I will leave it there because most of what is being said has been said previously. I hope that the Member will see the wisdom of not pressing this to a vote and withdraw the motions. I think that the House would be very appreciative of that.

Ms Boyle: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. My retort to Mr Morrow is that I have been lobbied by constituents who own quarries in the locality —

Lord Morrow: On this side of the border?

Ms Boyle: — on this side of the border. They depend solely on hauliers coming across the border to keep their business afloat. The way that the economy is, without the hauliers coming across, these businesses would have to close.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the issue today. I also put on record my opposition and that of my party to the ludicrous proposal by the British Government to charge hauliers based in the rest of Ireland a fee of £10 a day or £1,000 a year to use the road system here.

Sinn Féin has a wider vision and a greater ambition for the people and the economy. There are no advantages for an island nation of 6·4 million on the edge of Europe with two separate tax regimes, two currencies and legal systems and two separate economies. Indeed, the power to harmonise structures across the island would be central to creating a fully integrated and healthy economy, yet the British Tory Government want to split the island further by introducing this levy on vehicles crossing the border from the South to the North.

As a representative from a border region, like other Members here, I know all too well the potential damage that this will cause. The imposition of this levy would have a detrimental effect on the expanding island-wide trade that currently generates £2·3 billion for this island and could dissuade investment in Northern operations by Southern parent companies.

Lord Morrow: I thank the Member for giving way. She talks about the "detrimental impact" that this will have right across the island of Ireland, but I would like her to understand that we are talking about a charge of £2·74 a day. That is the maximum charge.

Ms Boyle: I thank the Member for his intervention, but that equates to £1,000 a lorry. That would have a negative impact on the agrifood sector that we rely on; it is our fastest growing sector North and South of this island.

Sinn Féin has been vocal in its opposition to this levy, and our representatives, North and South, have been to the forefront of highlighting the issue. Indeed, my party colleague Pat Doherty MP has consistently lobbied the British Government on this issue, and Pádraig Mac Lochlainn and other TDs have kept this on the agenda at Leinster House. Our local councillors who have been to the forefront of this issue — Councillors Jay McCauley and Gary Doherty — along with our MEP Matt Carthy attended a public meeting in Letterkenny along with Barry McElduff earlier in the year. I also commend my Sinn Féin colleagues on the Environment Committee who have brought this before the House today.

The British Government need to use legislation to exempt roads in the North from this regressive charge. The Irish Government must also ensure that they challenge their British counterparts to stop this charge, which has the potential to severely affect the future viability of small and medium-sized businesses, especially along the already struggling border regions.

This HGV levy is against the ethos of the European Union, which is working to eliminate borders that separate people. In particular, this levy aims to separate people from the North from the rest of the island of Ireland. Haulage firms are already under extreme pressure in the current climate without adding insult to injury by imposing this levy. The price of fuel has remained at an all-time high. These costs impact on the businesses that utilise haulage firms and would eventually come back to hit the average consumer. That is without even thinking about how this levy would work on a practical level. Will we be faced with the return of checkpoints at the border?

Once again, we have an example of policy formulated at Westminster that gives no consideration to the economic or geographic realities on this island. Indeed, last September, Pat Doherty MP wrote to the Minister for Transport in London outlining these concerns. The subsequent response from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport was completely dismissive by attempting to equate the planned £10 levy with the toll charges payable on HGV vehicles on some motorways in the South.

Given that there are hundreds of border crossings, this British Government levy plan would also be completely unworkable in practical terms. I, along with others, have met hauliers from Donegal and surrounding areas and have heard at first-hand on several occasions the devastating impact that it would have on their business. These people's livelihoods stand to be impacted immediately. Areas like Strabane and Lifford, which are less than a mile apart, will be particularly affected by this regressive measure. It will also have the potential to cost jobs across the island and will certainly damage the development of an all-Ireland economy.

It is time to focus on building and not dividing the island's economy. A single island economy for all citizens across Ireland would provide the opportunity for fair and harmonised progression, taxation, regulation and trade. The all-Ireland economy is a reality. Let us now begin to agree and to implement policies across the island that will deliver prosperity and equality for all our people, promote economic growth and trade for enterprises, safeguard public services and create and sustain jobs. Partition never made economic sense. Together, we can build a new stronger economy that works for us all. This threatens no one and will benefit all.

I want to go back to my party colleague Mr McElduff's opening speech, when he referred to Mr Gallagher, who travels from Lifford to Dunnamanagh daily, sometimes two or three times a day. Indeed, as I said, I have been speaking to quarry companies in my area, which have told me that, if this is the case, their businesses will go down the tube. They will be out of business. They depend on hauliers coming across. This only adds to the impact on jobs and business sustainability in our already burdened economy.

I urge Members to support my party's motions.

Mr A Maginness: I say at the start that this is a bogus debate. It is a fraudulent debate. It has been brought for party political and campaigning purposes —

Mr Flanagan: On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.

Mr A Maginness: Sorry —

Mr Flanagan: I ask the Principal Deputy Speaker to make a ruling on whether it is all right for a Member to make an accusation that the debate is "fraudulent". It is a strange phrase to use. I do not think that it is an acceptable phrase.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind all Members of the standards that we expect in debate and to be careful with their language.

Mr A Maginness: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. This debate is a pretence. It is a pretence brought by Sinn Féin, not because of any internal reasons in Northern Ireland but to appeal to the electorate in Donegal, where it has seats that it wishes to retain. That party has to appear to be defending the rights and interests of Donegal hauliers. That is the reason why the debate has been brought. Let us be frank about it. Let Sinn Féin be frank about it: that is the reason.

Of course, it is a dig at the SDLP. It is a poke at Mark H Durkan, who is a border MLA and Minister of the Environment. It is an attempt to embarrass him and do him down. That is the reality of this debate.

I know Donegal very, very well. In fact, my mother came from Donegal. Many family members live there. I have a deep affection for the county, as, indeed, do many Members of the House. I know that the Donegal people are very sensible. They are not easily fooled and are not gullible. When they view this debate or read the text, they will understand that there is an attempt to try to deceive them. That attempt is being made by Sinn Féin Members. They do so because they want to curry favour.

As was stated in the House —

Mr McElduff: Will the Member give way?

Mr A Maginness: No, I will not give way. You have filibustered for long enough for other reasons, which we all know about.

The point that I make to you, which has been made on a number of occasions during the debate, is that this is an excepted matter. The British Government have directly legislated for this, and they can and will enforce the charge, even if we, as a House, were to grant the prayer of annulment. In actual fact, this is a futile legislative exercise as well as an act of deception.

The merits of not having a charge have been well and truly illustrated. I have great sympathy for the people in Donegal and elsewhere on that. Although our unionist colleagues have not supported the exemption per se, they have not opposed our trying to get an exemption from the British Government. That has not worked, despite pressure put on by the Irish Government and by former Minister Attwood and Minister Durkan.

Of course, the grandstanding by Sinn Féin on the issue has begun to fall apart, partly because of Mr Flanagan, who, from time to time, drops the mask. On this occasion, he expressed overt sympathy for UKIP. Mr McNarry is not here, but I am sure that he was very impressed when Mr Flanagan expressed his sympathy for UKIP. Of course, he is quite right to express —

Mr Flanagan: Will the Member give way?

Mr A Maginness: No, I will not. You have made your point.

Mr Flanagan, of course, revealed the reality of Sinn Féin, which is that it is the Irish version of UKIP. It is as xenophobic and as Eurosceptic as UKIP. Indeed, I go further: it is not even Eurosceptic; it is anti-European. The Member who spoke previously talked about creating a single market in Ireland. There is a single market in Ireland. It came about as a result of the Maastricht treaty, which these people opposed. It created a single market in Europe. I know that other Members opposed it as well. We have a single market in Europe thanks to the European Union. We have much better and closer contact on the back of cross-border economic trade and development. That all emanates from the European Union. If these people had their way, we would be out of Europe. Sinn Féin has opposed every major European development, whether it was Maastricht, Nice or Lisbon, which increased democracy and the powers of the European Parliament and allowed more people into the European Union by expanding it.

Sinn Féin opposed the creation of the European currency. It opposed the euro. It is only latterly that it has become supportive of it. I remember the time when, along with the 'Daily Mail' and perhaps the DUP, it wanted to retain the pound sterling. That is the reality. That was the position that your party adopted, so do not come —

Mr Wilson: good thing that it did. Thank goodness that it did.

Mr A Maginness: Well, there you are. You have something in common at last.

Of course —

Mr McElduff: On a point of order. I seek guidance from the Principal Deputy Speaker on whether Mr Maginness may be straying far from the debate on the HGV levy. He has totally played the man and not the ball. It has been ad hominem throughout.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: That is not a legitimate point of order. Quite a lot of the debate has strayed from the original subject under discussion, and Mr Maginness is picking up on some of the opportunities that were presented by others.

Mr A Maginness: Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. I am glad of your ruling.

Another point was made about trying to remove borders in Ireland. What does Sinn Féin want? It wants to create a border in Spain, between the Basque Country and the rest of Spain. So, on the one hand, it wants to remove the border in Ireland, but, on the other, it wants to create a border in Spain. Those are the contradictions —

Mr Flanagan: What is your view on that?

Mr A Maginness: If you want to speak, you can speak later.

Those are the contradictions that are encompassed within Sinn Féin. So, let nobody misunderstand the position of Sinn Féin when it comes to Europe. It is fundamentally antipathetic towards the European Union and it has always — always — opposed any major improvement in the European Union.

I will end there, which Mr Flanagan is probably happy about.

Lord Morrow: Will the Member give way?

Mr A Maginness: Yes.

Lord Morrow: I thank the Member for giving way. I would like him to clarify a point. He talks about borders. Is he saying that Sinn Féin supports the border here between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic?

Mr A Maginness: It would not surprise me what Sinn Féin would do tomorrow, because on every major issue, it has changed its mind. It changed its mind in relation to Stormont, power sharing, the Council of Ireland and the police. So, Sinn Féin might even tomorrow decide that it supports the border. I will end there.

Mr Milne: Go raibh maith agat, a Príomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I speak in favour of the motions.

It is time to build — not split — an island economy. In these difficult economic times, we must ensure that every opportunity is taken to grow the local economy. The levy runs counter to that and will have a negative impact that will be felt not just by hauliers but by local businesses and, ultimately, the consumer. The regressive HGV levy serves only to further split the island economically at a time when the focus should be on rebuilding, realigning and repairing it.

Cross-border movement in Ireland, North and South, is already affected by different levies for vehicle registration tax, differences in direct and indirect tax rates, eligibility for tax credits, differences in tax years and housing costs. The levy is yet another example of a destructive barrier to cross-border movement and trade. Despite the interconnections and the interdependence of the economies North and South, there has been limited focus on promoting island-wide growth and recovery.

Island-wide trade has yet to reach its full potential. Immediate action is required to address the state of the economy in the border region, which has been particularly disadvantaged by the historical legacy of the border. Far from being a minor issue, the implementation of the aggressive HGV levy acts as a barrier to building the island economy in a mutually beneficial way.

If we are to maximise the return of the island economy, we must maximise economic growth. That means ensuring that there are no added impediments to that growth, and the HGV levy, as it stands, is an impediment. All HGVs crossing the border into the North are liable to pay a levy of up to £10. That could drastically lower the potential of our SMEs to compete in the island market, particularly in the agrifood sector, which is our fastest growing sector, North and South.

We have a choice to make. We can choose to reject the secondary legislation and collectively call on the British Government to exempt all roads from the levy.

The British Government can, through an affirmative order, exclude roads from the levy, and should do so in recognition of the unique situation that exists here on the island of Ireland. The inclusion of the North will have only a marginal impact on the British Treasury but a detrimental effect on local businesses.

Our border areas face significant challenges. There are high rates of unemployment and higher rates of deprivation. Crucially, SMEs along the border perform better at exporting than other local businesses. Those businesses are heavily reliant on border trade to survive. The HGV levy would result in increased costs for those businesses, which would destabilise and even close some small businesses. In circumstances where the costs can be borne by the business, it is the consumer who will ultimately pay. We are already experiencing a cost of living crisis. Our food and petrol prices are higher than elsewhere. Daily disposable income does not even cover the cost of a return train ticket from Portadown to Belfast or Belfast to Derry. It is time to focus on building, not dividing, the island economy for the benefit of all citizens.

I know, Minister, that you did make representations to Westminster that, unfortunately, fell on deaf ears. I repeat that it makes no sense to split the island economy. In the context of Europe, there is scope for us to collectively present the argument that our unique circumstances on the island of Ireland should be considered. We know that North/South cooperation works, whether it relates to the economy, health or education. Cooperation threatens no one, and economic cooperation is vital to stimulate growth. More can be achieved through collaboration and integration than competition. We should be developing island-wide transport infrastructure, not dividing it.

The levy is one of several regressive steps, alongside the lack of progress on the Narrow Water bridge and the A5. There are no advantages for an island of 6·5 million people on the edge of Europe with two separate tax regimes, two currencies, two legal systems and two severed economies. What makes sense is harmonising, cooperation and mutual benefits. What makes sense is maximising the return of the island economy for the local economy. What makes sense is protecting people from a further rise in food costs as a direct result of a regressive and poorly planned levy directed from Westminster. What makes sense is ensuring that there is free movement throughout the island. What makes sense is exempting local roads from the HGV levy.

We need to work together to lay strong foundations for a new era of economic development and sustainable recovery. The opportunities from integration and the transforming of the island economy are great. Ensuring that the levy does not disrupt cross-border trade in this, an already fragile economy, is crucial. That is why I ask you to support us in rejecting this regressive charge.

Mr Brady: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion.

I will refer briefly to what Mr Maginness said. I have had the misfortune to listen to him during Budget debates. I thought that he invented filibustering. I also take exception to being referred to, as a member of Sinn Féin, as "these people". Common courtesy is obviously not his strong point, but I suppose that I should not expect anything else from him and his ilk.

Mr Wilson: Is "his ilk" not the same as "these people"?

Mr Brady: You can interpret it whatever way you want.

Living in and representing Newry and Armagh, which is a border constituency, it is my responsibility to protect our local businesses and economy. That is certainly something that the Tory Government have no intention of doing. Over 80% of businesses on this island are small or medium enterprises. That includes local businesses. Any additional costs or levy will impact on local businesses, and ultimately that burden will be passed on to the local consumer.

What strikes me as peculiar is that, when I sat on the Social Development Committee with the Minister, he did not seem to be quite as wedded to parity as he seems to be now. Certainly, at a time, parity was not something that he was enamoured of, if I remember rightly.

In Newry, for instance, it is impossible not to notice the number of HGVs from the South delivering locally on a daily basis. Take shopping centres in Newry. In the Quays, for example, you can go from Debenhams at one end to Sainsbury's at the other. All that income goes back to Britain. The only income coming into our local economy is, usually, the minimum wage. People in my constituency cannot afford the extra burden that will inevitably be passed on.

The enforcement of this levy will impact on all businesses that transport goods across this island. It will actually discourage companies in Donegal, Louth, Monaghan and even Dublin from trading in the North. I cannot understand why we are creating barriers instead of building the economy. We are going back to the days when lorries had to go through physical border posts and were stopped and searched etc, leading to delays and extra costs. Surely this can only be a regressive step.

I do not understand why a Minister in the Executive would even contemplate such a harmful levy that will have a negative impact on established businesses. The point was made earlier — and I will make it again — that our border areas face significant challenges. They have higher rates of unemployment and deprivation. Two of the most deprived wards in the North are in my own constituency. These businesses are also heavily reliant on border trade to survive. The levy will result in increased costs for these businesses, which could destabilise and even close some small businesses. It has been mentioned that the costs that we pay are already higher. Our food and petrol prices are higher than elsewhere.

Mr Eastwood made great play of the fact that —

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for giving way. Can I just ask the Member to clarify that what he and his party actually want us to do is to continue as we are without the enforcement of this tax, which is not of our making but has come from the Department for Transport at Westminster, which, if it is not brought in by Northern Ireland, will come and enforce it itself? Can the Member just clarify that that is the position?

Mr Brady: I thank the Member for her intervention. To that, I will say something that we have been saying about other things: it might help if we present a united front, stand up and face these people down.

According to Mr Eastwood, we just have to roll over and accept all of this. That has been the tenor of some of the debate. As has been mentioned, the British Secretary of State, Theresa Villiers, can, through an affirmative order, exclude roads from the levy. If you look at what the levy would actually create, you will see that it would have only a marginal impact on the Treasury, as any importers or exporters would still have to pay the costs when landing in Britain. So it would not make any real difference. Maybe we should do what we should do on other things and stand up, present a united front and speak up for the people whom we represent.

Mr Flanagan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I am a bit disappointed at the tone of some of the contributors. I fully support the proposers of the motion and their efforts to ensure that this bad piece of legislation is not enacted.

The proposed HGV levy, which some people managed to speak on for an awful long time without actually getting near to mentioning, is a crazy policy on an island such as this one. We see greater cooperation taking place between governments and organisations North and South. When we now have the political maturity for a joint trade mission to go to an air show in Singapore in February involving the North's Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the South's Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation jointly promoting this island and, along with their British counterpart, promoting both of these islands, and when the British and Irish Governments can come together to bring forward a joint visa scheme for people who are visiting either of these islands from thousands of miles away, why can they not do it for a lorry that wants to drive up and down these roads? If it can be done for people who want to travel to or from Singapore either to promote this place as a potential location for investment or to make it easier for people coming for business or tourism, surely they can sort out the whole issue of heavy goods vehicles travelling on our roads.

Some people appear to think that a tax of £1,000 a year on a lorry is not a pile of money. It is certainly nothing to be sneered at. If there were an increase of £1,000 to the annual fuel bill for a HGV, we would certainly hear about it. I presume that our colleagues in the SDLP would not say, "There is nothing that we can do about it." It would be raised, there would be a debate about it here, and there would be complete outrage. We would not be saying, "Oh well, there is nothing that we can do." There is the whole nonsense that we cannot table this motion as there is nothing we can do. There is nothing we can do about the persecution of Christians at the far end of the world, but it seems that it is dead on to table two motions to debate that. There is nothing we can do about that in this wee debating hall that turns into a sixth form common room at times. This is an important issue.

We have been told by many that it is not the time or the place for this issue to be debated and that we are attacking the SDLP again. I do not think that anybody mentioned the SDLP. I do not think that any of the Members from our party who spoke mentioned Mark Durkan. The only person who went on a rant about party politics was Alban Maginness, but that was no surprise to us. Barry McElduff spoke, and I do not think that he once mentioned Mark Durkan in a negative way. He is trying to build a united front and is not out to score political points against the SDLP. I will tell you in a minute what we would say if we were trying to score political points against the SDLP. I will come to that; I had not meant to, but I have been provoked.

Nobody sought to embarrass the SDLP. We have not criticised Mark H Durkan. As far as I know, this is not his policy. He did not sit down in a darkened room one night to write the HGV levy. It was not his idea. We are not fighting him, and our fight is not with him. The faux outrage from the SDLP that we are trying to embarrass it is a load of crap. That is not what we are dealing with. This is a policy of the British Government, and we should not support them by implementing it.

There are a number of solutions. I am sympathetic to what a number of the Members opposite said about Sinn Féin's alternative. Our alternative is that the roads in the North should be exempt from the levy. Some said that an exemption should apply to the A5. Exempting the A5 is a sensible argument, but we do not need to stop there. We need to make sure that all roads in the North are exempt. However, if we cannot get agreement on that position, there are alternatives. We could come up with a scheme that covers both of these islands so that there is not the unfair playing field that is there at the minute. Everybody would pay the levy, but it would be applied fairly across all hauliers.

Colleagues mentioned that businesses in border areas do much better at exporting and that they often use Southern hauliers. To be honest, anybody who says that this is only about hauliers in Donegal does not know what they are talking about. Businesses based in border areas use Southern hauliers and are reliant on them to move their goods and products. Someone will have to pay the additional costs. If they put a tax of £1,000 a year on the lorry, who do they think will pay that? It will be passed on to the end user, who —

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member realise that the £1,000 is a maximum charge and that it can be paid daily, weekly, monthly or annually? Road usage and vehicle weight affect the payment. The maximum is £1,000 a year.

Mr Flanagan: I thank the Member for her intervention. I also thank Sean in RaISe, who produced a very helpful document, which includes a table giving the rate for each band. The Member is right that £1,000 a year per lorry is the maximum charge. You can pay it daily at a tenner, weekly at £50 or monthly at £100. None of those are small sums, and they will seriously impact on hauliers in the South and on customers, producers and manufacturers in the North.

The customers and the constituents whom we represent will foot the bill. Whatever small amount is raised will have a huge impact here, but it will not stay here. It will go off to Britain and help to build a train track from London to Birmingham or somewhere like that. It will not help to extend the railway from Derry to Coleraine and get it open again. It will certainly not build a train track to Enniskillen. I can guarantee you that that is not what the money will go on. As much as I would like that, it will not happen. We have been told that our food and fuel bills are already higher here, so we can certainly do without an additional tax to move goods.

Two roads are partially exempt, and that has been the case from the start. That was the case when we tabled the motion in May, and we called for further exemptions. Some Members indicated their support for adding the A5 to the list of exemptions, and the Minister said that he would seek such an exemption. In May, we were also told that it was the wrong time for a debate and that we were tabling a motion as an election was coming up and we were using it to attack the SDLP. It has nothing to do with the SDLP; the SDLP is not bringing forward this HGV levy. Its Minister has a responsibility for enacting a secondary piece of legislation, but it is not his piece of legislation. So, once again, I want to tell Alban Maginness that we are not fighting with the SDLP over the issue, even if he wants to be outraged and offended and say that I am attacking the Minister. He is on the wrong planet; he is definitely in the wrong continent.

Some people might say that this is not the time or the place, but maybe some people do not want to have this debate; maybe some people do not want to hear that partition is bad for our people.

Additional roads need to be exempt. We have adopted the position that all roads need to be exempt. Maybe some other people would adopt a smaller position where some roads need to be exempt. Would they pick the A5, which runs from Derry to Aughnacloy, or the A4, which goes from Belcoo the whole way to Ballygawley and extends up to Dungannon and Belfast? Would they add in the A46, which goes from Enniskillen to Belleek, or the A8, which the Member for East Antrim probably knows right and well? Would they add in that road, given its strategic importance?

It is rich for Alban Maginness to stand up and tell us that this is not about the North. Not once did he mention the HGV levy. In all of his wide-ranging, historical address — talking about things that happened before I was born — he never once mentioned the HGV levy. That shows you what he is here for. He is not here to debate the HGV levy; he is here because he thinks that there is a political attack against Mark H Durkan, and he is here to block that attack. He is the one who started the attack; it did not exist until he got up to speak. A large number of Members spoke, but not one of them mentioned Mark H Durkan. Nobody attacked or crucified him or said anything negative at all about the man. He stands up and tells us that this is not about the North and that it is us looking to the South. Well, we have a lot more voters in the South than the SDLP has.

From Alban Maginness's lengthy pontification on the issue, he did not seem to have a clue what he was talking about. He has not engaged with people to be able to tell us about the issue. He certainly has not engaged with anybody in a border area. Maybe, sitting in his ivory tower in north Belfast, everything is fine and dandy for him, but it is certainly not good for people in border areas. It is not good for the people who are manufacturing stuff — the manufacturing and agrifood companies that are trying to get the stuff that they make sent to their customers. It is not all fun and games for them.

Mr Eastwood: Will the Member give way?

Mr Flanagan: I will in a minute, Colum. As someone who represents a border constituency and who engages on a consistent basis with businesses, I know that this is a problem for those who are based in the North. Let me tell those in this room who think that this is only about hauliers in the South that it certainly is not. It is about businesses in the North that are trying to get their stuff moved; it is about people employed in the North who are going to lose their jobs; and, ultimately, it is about our constituents who are going to face increased costs as a result of this tax.

Mr Eastwood: I thank the Member for giving way. I am from a border constituency as well, so I understand the negative impact that partition has had, and I understand the negative impact that this could have. We have already stated our opposition. Earlier, I asked a question that I would like you to address: how do you stop it? I have not heard once in the debate how we can actually stop this. This is an excepted matter controlled by the British Government in Westminster; they will come in and implement the tax if we do not. Tell me how to stop that. We will do it tomorrow.

Mr Flanagan: I thank the Member for his contribution. I always think it is great to hear the SDLP insisting that we come up with alternatives. Perhaps if the Member for East Antrim had the Floor he might suggest that the SDLP might suggest that we sell the City of Derry Airport and use the funds to offset the taxation. That is the type of alternative that we are dealing with.

I want to finish on a positive note, when I get there, and that is where I want to see a solution coming from. I will come back to Colum's question in a minute. It was not us who introduced party politics into the debate; it was Alban Maginness.

When he gets up to speak, I am genuinely reminded of the comments that Paul Gogarty made to Emmet Stagg in the Dáil one day, and I dare not repeat those, because there are enough people getting thrown out of this place at the minute. I genuinely do not think that he mentioned the HGV levy once in his historical debate. He accused us of trying to embarrass the SDLP, as have others. We do not need to embarrass the SDLP. If you have Alban Maginness speaking on this issue for you, he is doing a good enough job. We never once mentioned Mark H Durkan in a critical manner. I am sure that we are all aware —

Mr Wilson: You mentioned him about 50 times.

Mr Flanagan: I hear you, Sammy; I hear you. I have mentioned him in a passive manner. I am saying that we have not attacked him.

I am sure that he did his best because, fundamentally, he does not agree with the policy, and his party does not agree with it. This is not an attack on his party. If this was going to be a political attack on the SDLP, I would have plenty of material here without having to get into Mark H Durkan's inability to get the British Government to roll over on a HGV levy.

Mr Wilson: Fifty-one.

Mr Flanagan: I think that it was 52. The SDLP has a number of policies. It has gone to considerable effort to make up policies that it has presented to the electorate, and the electorate have not really liked them that well. However, it is important that people realise that, in 2011, it produced a manifesto, which had a considerable section on its environmental policies and how the SDLP has delivered on them.

Lord Morrow: What about the prayer of annulment?

Mr Flanagan: I am on SR 2014/232, Maurice. If you read it, you will see where I am going. The SDLP manifesto stated that it had maintained pressure for an independent environmental protection agency:

The Minister now says that it is not necessary to create a new statutory body outside of government to secure the necessary improvements. What has changed? Have people stopped polluting, or is it simply the fact that the SDLP is now in charge of the Department?

Before the 2011 election, you could not stop SDLP MLAs tabling questions and motions and raising the issue of how bad PPS 21 is. They bombarded the previous Environment Minister, who was here earlier for this debate, about PPS 21. In fact, when Patsy McGlone was Chair of the Environment Committee, he claimed that PPS 21 was exactly the same as PPS 14. What do the MLAs do now that they have the ability to change the policy? They run away from it, and they raise the issue of the definition of a business, whereas when the party did not have the Ministry, it was all about non-farming families. When the SDLP is in a position to change things, it does not do so.

Lord Morrow: What about SR 2014/230?

Mr Flanagan: We are still on SR 2014/232, Maurice.

Mr Flanagan: The SDLP's economic vision is that it wants:

It says:

If ever there was a pure common-sense approach to dealing with a tax, this is it. It is not a concession to nationalism to say, "Don't tax people who are coming three miles across the border to lift something out of a quarry and to bring it back into Donegal again". That is common sense, but the SDLP seems to be opposing it.

Mr Eastwood: Will the Member give way?

Mr Flanagan: Yes.

Mr Eastwood: For somebody who did not set out to attack the SDLP, you have done an awful lot of research into some of our previous documents. I do not want to press you on it, but the question that I asked you was, "How do we stop the levy being collected, no matter who collects it?" We are all ears.

Mr Flanagan: There are a number of solutions, and I told you that I will return to them. I have a three-word answer for you: vote for it. Vote for our motion to annul the legislation that your Minister brought forward. The initial solution is for you and your party to vote against it.

These are U-turns in SDLP policy — it is interesting that Mr Eastwood is here — and Alban Maginness gave us a lecture on Sinn Féin's position on Europe, but what is the SDLP's position on a border poll? Mr Eastwood was quoted in the 'Belfast Telegraph' in his weekly opinion piece saying that it is time for a border poll —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Get back on the road, please.

Mr Flanagan: — but the leader says that a border poll would not be useful. What is the party's position on that? Mr Maginness made a ludicrous allegation about UKIP, which is a load of nonsense. The point that I made was that UKIP had an advert in Irish newspapers telling people here to vote for UKIP, and it will give us our country back, meaning that if people here vote for a UKIP candidate, it will give us back Ireland. It is nothing to do with Europe or any of that oul' nonsense. That was the point that I was making. Maybe Mr Maginness just does not get humour.

Mr Morrow has encouraged me to return to SR 2014/230, which I will happily do. In all fairness to this policy, let us give Barry's friend Mr Goodwill a bit of credit. This policy probably makes sense on the south coast of England, where people drive lorries across from Calais, go into London for an hour and a half, drop something off and go back out again, or they come in from Calais, lift a load in the south of England, deliver it somewhere else in England and leave again. That is affecting English hauliers, but we are not here to represent them; we are here to represent the people who elect us, and I am here to represent the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. That is my primary interest. The policy may make economic sense in the south of England, and that is where the policies that we are having to deal with are being set for. The British Government do not set economic policies with our interests at heart. Certainly not. They do not even think about us. We are not even an afterthought. They do not think, "What are the consequences of this for the people on the far side of Lough Erne in Fermanagh? What impact will it have on their lives?" They are interested only in the people who vote for them in the south of England and do not care about us. This policy does not make sense here. We do not face the problems that they face; we face our own problems.

I turn to the Minister now, and this is what I want him to do, as well as to vote in favour of the motion. I want to see him return to the issue. I do not want him to say, "Well, lookit, the Assembly has voted for this issue, and that is the end of it". Regardless of the way in which the vote goes, I want to see the Minister return to the issue with his colleague in the South and his colleague in Britain and find a solution that meets the needs of people and businesses here. I want to see something that creates a level playing field, to use a phrase from one of the Members opposite. I do not want to see the distorted situation that we have currently. What we have at the minute is completely unacceptable. It goes against the stated ethos of greater North/South cooperation where that makes economic sense. A better solution has to be found. It does not make sense to charge people £1,000 a year for crossing the border with a lorry. Firms could be employing staff here and buying products here. In Michaela and Barry's case, they could be going to a quarry to lift aggregate, for which tax is paid. They could have staff who are paid here and are spending their wages in shops in the North, yet perhaps the firm that owns the lorry is based in the South. The policy does not meet our unique needs.

A better solution has to be found, but the one point that I will make is that it will not be found with a British Minister who has no accountability for, or interest in, the affairs of people here. Regardless of what people think my view of Mark H Durkan is, I certainly have more faith in him to deliver a HGV levy scheme that meets the needs of the people here than I do in any Minister in a British Government based in the south of England.

Mr Spratt: On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I know that Mr Flanagan is an extremely talented person on radio, but will you examine his comment earlier in the House in which he referred to a "load of crap" — those were his words — and check that in the Hansard report? Will you come back and tell the House whether that is strictly parliamentary language?

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I will review it. I actually noted his comment and did not find it exceptionally difficult, given the context in which he presented it. However, I will read the Hansard report.

Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment): Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Members of the Assembly, I welcome the opportunity today — tonight — to reply to the prayer of annulment for the five statutory rules that create a fixed penalty regime for non-payment of the HGV user levy, even though, I suspect, the motives of those who have decided to bring it to the House have possibly more to do with party politics than serious concern about the impact of the levy, despite protestations otherwise.

Let me make it very clear: the HGV levy is a tax that has been introduced by the UK Government. As a tax, it is an excepted matter under the Northern Ireland Act. The levy has applied across Britain and the North since 1 April this year. However, while it has been enforced in Britain, it has not been enforced here to date.

Since the Department for Transport introduced the levy, it must comply with EU legislation and put an effective enforcement regime in place. The levy has been thrust on us, and we must now make sensible decisions moving forward.

Today, we are not debating the introduction of the levy but the mechanism for its enforcement here. The legislation being considered concerns whether it is appropriate that drivers of a vehicle, within the scope of the levy, receive a fixed penalty if they have not paid for their journey instead of court proceedings being instigated.

I will inform the Assembly of the actions I have taken to engage with Department for Transport Ministers in London, who are ultimately responsible for the levy. I will set out my reasons for bringing forward these five statutory rules despite my continued reservations about the appropriateness of the levy itself. I have previously articulated my concerns about the levy in this House. I will also address some of the issues that Members have raised today, and there have been quite a few.

I have made it very clear to Department for Transport Ministers that the decision to introduce the levy may impact on the economies of both jurisdictions on this island. I do not believe that the UK gave proper consideration to the unique position here on this island, particularly in respect of the operation of the haulage industry and the reliance on it to maintain and grow a wide variety of businesses. I believe that my engagement with Minister Goodwill has given DfT greater understanding of the position on this island, and I will continue to make my views known to him or to whomever, as appropriate. I have been actively engaged with hauliers, haulage industry representatives and with Ministers in London and Dublin to identify ways to ensure that the island-wide economy is not adversely impacted on by this new levy.

Coming from the north-west, I fully understand the significant economic problems that exist in the area and know that any increased costs could have detrimental impacts, not only here but on the island-wide trade and economy. Although some signs of economic recovery, North and South, are beginning to emerge, this is still a very fragile process, and I am committed to doing all that I can to ensure that the levy does not have a detrimental impact on that recovery.

I believe that the exclusion of the A5 could mitigate some of the economic impact of the levy. The A5 is of significant importance to the population of County Donegal because of its geographic position. It is the main arterial route from the north-west to Dublin city, its port and beyond. I, along with hauliers from the South, those who represent them, TDs and MLAs, have highlighted that the failure to exclude certain roads, in particular the A5, would have a detrimental impact on cross-border trade and the all-island haulage industry. However, we have been unable, to date, to provide any hard data to support this assertion. I have, therefore, been unable to convince DfT of the need to exempt the A5. However, I am pleased to report that, as a direct result of my engagement, DfT has given a commitment that it will consider what mitigating actions are needed to rectify any problems if and when firm evidence of adverse impact becomes available, and I will hold it to that.

The levy is generally supported by hauliers in Britain and in the North. It has long been the industry's view here that, since hauliers have to pay to use the roads in other European countries, including tolls in Ireland, hauliers from those countries should pay in the UK. Indeed, in response to my Department's consultation on the fixed penalty regime, the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association reaffirmed this view.

It is important to stress that all affected hauliers in the North are already paying the levy as part of their vehicle excise duty payment. There is also clear evidence that a significant number of Irish hauliers are already paying it, and, whilst I do not have the precise answer to Mrs Overend's question, I understand that around 51,000 levies have been purchased for around 7,000 Irish-registered vehicles in the six months since the levy became law.

Further engagement with DfT has allayed some of my concerns about potential financial implications for transport-related businesses in the North, for example, those who service and repair HGVs for Southern operators. I can confirm that hauliers who bring vehicles to the North from the South to have them serviced or repaired do not and will not have to pay the levy.

My decision to bring forward the fixed penalty legislation was not easy. However, I am satisfied that most affected drivers would prefer to pay an on-the-spot fine rather than become tied up with the courts, as that is not only time-consuming but costly. I should stress again that DfT must, under European law, ensure that the levy is enforced.

The decision about whether DVA will enforce the levy has been more difficult and one that I have not taken lightly, not least because of my continuing concerns about its potential impact. However, since the levy is now in place and, under European law, it must be enforced, I believe that, on balance, it is better that the DVA undertakes its enforcement rather than having DfT bring in its own enforcement agency. I believe that it will be better for the haulage industry as it reduces the risk that hauliers will be delayed on their journey. Multiple enforcement agencies could mean multiple stops and late deliveries or missed boats, which would definitely impact on profit margins and business.

The Driver and Vehicle Agency is constantly engaged with the hauliers who use our roads, which means that stops will be undertaken more efficiently and safely and hauliers will be back en route more quickly than if a new enforcement agency were carrying out the work.

I have secured additional funding from DfT for a number of new enforcement jobs here. DfT will also commit to giving us £750,000 capital funding for new automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) camera equipment. That can be used not only for enforcing the levy but for ensuring that other transport laws that provide for road safety and fair competition are obeyed.

I listened very carefully to all Members who spoke during the debate, and I thank them for their contributions; some were longer than others. I would like to make the following comments on points raised.

I will start with Mr McElduff, who proposed the prayer of annulment motions. He started by setting out his party's view, which is not too far from that of my own. While this may be bad law, as Mr McElduff put it, it is law; it is law in many jurisdictions, and it is law here. He said that DfT had not listened, and I concur entirely. However, let me reiterate the fact that it was not for want of our trying. I think that it is fair and accurate to say that our efforts here perhaps superseded those of the Southern Government.

I appreciate Mr McElduff's recognition of my efforts and those of my predecessor, particularly with regard to the A5. As a north-west native, I am keenly aware of the plight of Donegal. However, I will not join Mr McElduff in going "Goodwill hunting". The specific example that he gave of the Lifford haulier and the impact that this would have on his business on a day-to-day basis is precisely the type of evidence that we will need to substantiate our case to DfT, and I will work with my officials, Members and hauliers to compile evidence as we progress to make our case as strong as possible.

Mr McElduff accused the DOE of proceeding with pace. That is a new one in the Chamber at least. He referred to the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. I am aware of BIPA's recent report on the levy. Like BIPA, I very much support the introduction of a British-Irish regional economic space with greater cooperation across a number of economic activities, including transport. BIPA’s recent report echoes our concerns and my concerns about the impact of the levy and takes up my call for the A5 to be exempted.

Ms Lo gave a helpful account of the Committee's deliberations, particularly of representations received by the Committee.

Mr Brady: I thank the Minister for giving way. Just when you are talking about Committees: you said that this is bad law. You also said on several occasions that welfare reform was bad law. Your party is opposed to that, but it seems to be rolling over and accepting this.

Mr Durkan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Member for his intervention.

Was it this time last Thursday that we were not the ones who rolled over? Coming from a party that has had more rollovers than the National Lottery, that is a bit rich.

It could be you.

I am glad that Ms Lo also acknowledged our efforts to secure arrangements that would and could be more satisfactory, and, in her role as Committee Chair, she would know more than most about the efforts that have been made.

Mrs Cameron went into more technical detail around the statutory rules and quite astutely identified the fact that this is better enforced by DOE than DfT. It is better for us and, more importantly, it is better for drivers and operators.

Mr Eastwood injected a degree of reality into the debate and urged public representatives to be upfront about how little we can do about it in here. It was a very good contribution, but he will be worried to know that Lord Morrow thought so, too.

I addressed Mrs Overend's question earlier. She opposed the prayers of annulment also.

Mr Weir threatened to make an uncharacteristically brief contribution. He did make a characteristically informed one, and, although he questioned whether the motivation behind this is to embarrass me, I am certain that that is not the case. If Sinn Féin did want to assassinate me, I am sure that I would know all about it.

Ms Boyle referred to a number of party colleagues in Sinn Féin. It was like a who's who of Sinn Féin. In fact, I actually had to ask "Who?" a few times because I had not heard from many of them on this issue. I accept that this issue has been very close to Mr McElduff's heart for some time, but I am extremely surprised at the volume of contributions from Sinn Féin, whose members have been queued up to speak, some at great length, on this excepted matter. In fact, there were more of them than wanted to speak or ask questions on the draft Budget for Northern Ireland yesterday.

Mrs D Kelly: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Durkan: Certainly.

Mrs D Kelly: Does the Minister share the view of many in the House that it was simply filibustering because they do not want to face up to the shame that awaits them in relation to how they have dealt with the Maíria Cahill case?

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for the intervention. It will be obvious to anyone in the Chamber and to anyone observing today's proceedings that there is certainly no rush to get on to the next debate in the Chamber. They have managed successfully to eat into the teatime news coverage of that debate.

Mr McAleer compared the levy to someone going from Leeds to Liverpool. Mr Maginness said that Sinn Féin wanted out of Europe. I want to get home in time to see Liverpool get out of Europe, so I will conclude very shortly.

Mr Brady asked about my view on parity and whether I had become wedded to it. This is the best that we can do, and anyone who thinks otherwise is living in fantasy land. Does that sound familiar?

Then we heard from Phil Flanagan, or is it Phil-ibuster? I was relieved to hear from Mr Flanagan that Sinn Féin is not out to attack me and that this has nothing to do with me. I very much look forward to seeing the press release that says that. Let me also reassure Mr Flanagan that I would not and do not sneer in any way at the £1,000 bill for hauliers or for anyone. It is estimated that that £1,000 represents approximately 0·5% of the annual cost of running the HGV, but I am in no way dismissive of the cost.

Mr Maginness was clearly a red flag to Mr Flanagan's bull, and, in here, we are all familiar with Mr Flanagan's bull.

He has clearly spent a lot of time studying SDLP manifestos, but his party has been doing that for some time. I look forward to seeing the policies reflected in future manifestos from Mr Flanagan's party.

I will summarise my position: I remain committed to ensuring that the potential negative impacts of the levy on trade across this island are monitored and that prompt action is taken if any are identified. I am content that, due to the actions that I have taken, Transport Ministers will take mitigating action should firm evidence become available of an economic impact on this island from the HGV road user levy. I believe that the arrangement that I secured to enforce the levy is the best option available to us. Therefore, I do not support this motion.

Mr Boylan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I suppose, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, that I have only an hour and half to wind on all of this stuff, so maybe we will sit back and relax until 8.00 pm and see how it goes.

The point that I want to start with is that, as elected Members, it is our duty to protect the needs and interests of local people. The debate has been interesting, and I will get to some of the points made. Maybe I will refer to the boxing match between Mr Flanagan and Mr Maginness as well. It was a good wee bout that went 15 rounds. This is the only point that I will make about the SDLP, and maybe the Minister will answer on his party's behalf: if the prayers of annulment had come along and the SDLP did not have the ministry, what would it have done? To be fair to the Minister, he was quite positive during the previous debate on this matter and committed to looking at ways to move forward and to looking at exemptions and everything else. Nobody is jumping forward to answer the question, but I can safely say that his party would be voting with us on this matter.

I commend the proposer. He sat down, methodically thought this out and brought a very good presentation to the House today. Basically, all of this boils down to a load of enforcement notices. Enforce the levy, collect the penalties and be done with it. That is what it is. The reality, and this is a sad reflection for us, is that this Westminster legislation is being enforced here by DVA. The irony is that we cannot even enforce the Taxis Act, but, still and all, we can put a team together to stop people on border roads. I was hoping that the Minister would expand on how exactly he proposes to introduce enforcement measures on all of those roads. Maybe the Committee will receive that information in writing.

I enjoyed Mr Flanagan's contribution, which he made in response to comments from some of the parties. Members got away from the subject and were allowed some leniency, which was grand. I want to compliment the proposer and my colleague Ian Milne. We tabled the motions because we have genuine concerns. The impact that the levy will have on people was highlighted over and over again. To be fair, Donegal was mentioned a load of times. I live in a border constituency, and Louth, Monaghan, Donegal and all the other counties will be impacted by this. Those are the people who are trying to protect. This is nothing new to Committee members because we had this debate there.

I was a wee bit disappointed in Mr Maginness, who told us all about Europe. I would not like to pay the fees to travel around every European country that he mentioned in his contribution. I want to remind him about this point, which Mr McElduff brought up.

It is from Mr Seamus McMahon of Linwoods, which is a giant bakery to the south of Armagh. For those Members who do not know the area, it is on the Middletown road and it employs more than 250 staff. Mr McMahon said that it could affect southern hauliers bringing in packaging or ingredients, and that it could lead to pricier bread and other products. Throughout the debate, Sinn Féin Members were supporting hauliers, businesses and long-term business relationships, which have been built up for a long time and many a day in those areas. The reality —

Mr Wilson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Boylan: Yes.

Mr Wilson: I am at a loss to understand Member's logic. If hauliers from the Irish Republic no longer find it profitable to deliver the goods that he is talking about in Northern Ireland, does it not give opportunities for Northern Ireland hauliers to take up the business, go across the border, lift the goods and bring them back into Northern Ireland? Surely, that would be a good thing?

Mr Boylan: I thank the Member for his intervention but clearly the Member has not lived in the area, though perhaps at one point he got on the train and came across the border. He does not know the working relationships, and he is being very narrow in his thinking. These businesses have been built up and have gained experience for long and many a day. That is what we are talking about.

You have given this debate a fair hearing, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. You will be delighted to know that I am not going to speak until 8.00 pm. I just want to pick up on some of the comments that have been made.

I want to praise the contribution of Mr McElduff. His remarks about Mr Goodwill were entertaining. Mr Goodwill did nothing for us at all; he showed no goodwill. Mr McElduff complimented the Minister on his speech in the last debate. I was hoping that Mr Durkan would have picked up on that again and mention something about it. However, Mr Durkan said that he would strive to look at this issue again and look at other exemptions. He is committed to that, and we will hold him to it.

The key points from Mr McElduff's contribution were that DfT is not listening and this is bad law. He is absolutely right. We have sat in the Committee talking about European directives, and all the Committee members have known this point for a long time. It is up to the member state to derogate those directives, in whatever way, so that it can facilitate exemptions if they wish. So there is an opportunity here. I call on all Members to support that.

I have a couple of other points. Anna Lo, the Chair of the Committee, talked about having a level playing field, and that is grand. However, although we talk about level playing fields and all these businesses, at the end of the day, this charge is going to be put onto consumers and customers. Not one person — except Ian Milne, Mickey Brady and Barry McElduff — acknowledged that, at the end of the day, the customer and the consumer will pay for all those charges. The reason why hauliers have come to us is that they are reluctant to put that charge onto the consumer.

Colum Eastwood is not in the Chamber at the minute. He said that he wanted to bring reality to this debate in that it is already dead and gone, it has been agreed, and we are only bringing forward the enforcement laws. He knows that the reality of the debate is this: he represents his constituents, just as I do mine, and our constituents are going to pay for this levy. It is as simple as that. So this is another tax on the people. So, if we want to talk about reality, let us get it right.

I picked up on the point made by Mrs Overend, who said that there are tolls in the South and across Europe. She said it is up to people and it is their choice. However, Mr Flanagan made a very good point about that when he said that cars and hauliers use the tolls and they pay. That is by pure choice; so I do not think, to be fair, that Mrs Overend has an argument.

Mr McAleer and Michaela Boyle spoke about their experience of how this would impact on businesses in their areas. They were contacted by businesses. Some Members across the House said that Sinn Féin Members kept using Donegal as an example, but at least Mr McAleer and Ms Boyle were contacted by people on how this would impact on them.

Mickey Brady mentioned that, in his experience at shopping centres in Newry, all the money goes out of the country, so it is nothing new. He asked us to present a united front. I want the Chamber to consider that in supporting us to get this over the line.

Phil Flanagan also asked for a united front and articulated his points on issues in respect of the SDLP. I thank him for his contribution.

I appreciate that the Minister said that he would look at the issue again and that there may be mitigating measures. However, I previously asked why an economic assessment was not carried out before the legislation was brought forward, instead of talking about mitigating factors now, seeing how it impacts and how it is paid. Clearly, we did not get an opportunity. The sad thing about the process is that we never got an opportunity to debate or consult on any of it, and now we find ourselves just enforcing it. The message that I want to get across is that the consumer, unfortunately, will pay for all that. Once again, it will impact on border areas.

Interestingly, for some reason or other, a report was leaked to 'The Stephen Nolan Show' the other day, and there was a debate about the possibility of losing many public sector jobs, giving much money to DETI, growing the private sector and everything else. In this situation, we are taking money and charging private business more money to conduct business.

I want to use this point if we are serious about private industry. The sad fact is that most border areas — I will use Armagh city and district as an example — are totally reliant on public sector jobs. The infrastructure is not in place. How will we grow the private sector? Here is an example of taking money and charging more. If we want to get into a debate about how we support businesses, let us be realistic. I know that next week or the week after I will hear the same people who spoke today about opposing the prayer of annulment and introducing legislation fighting for ordinary individuals, housing and every other right.

I ask the House to support the Sinn Féin motions.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind Members that I will put the Question on each of the motions listed in the Order Paper separately.

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

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

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

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

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Before we move to the next item of business, I ask the House to take its ease for a few moments while we change the top Table.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and thirty minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. One amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List. The proposer will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes.

Ms P Bradley: I beg to move

I say at the outset that the motion before the Chamber this evening brings me no pleasure, because it delves into the most heinous of crimes and the systemic cover-up of the Irish Republican Army and Sinn Féin. Rape is committed by the most vile scum of our society. It is a crime that should never be excused, it is a crime that should never be covered up, and it is a crime that should never allow the perpetrators to feel that they can commit it with impunity.

I applaud Maíria Cahill for having the courage to come forward and speak about her experience and bring to light the systemic failure of those in her community who were there to protect and support her. It is right and just that the case is now being reviewed by the PPS, and it is my wish that Ms Cahill will finally see the justice that she so rightly deserves. Part of that justice is also about holding those, including Jennifer McCann, to account for their role in prolonging Maíria's painful journey.

When any person is the victim of this disgusting personal violation, the decision to share their experience and report what has happened to them is one that takes a great deal of courage. There are often fears that they will not be believed by those they trust to tell, and this is magnified when the alleged perpetrator has a degree of standing in the community. Often, the survivor of such an attack will have to relive the event, and to a number of people, in order to see that justice is delivered. This has been described by many victims as reliving the attack over and over again.

As responsible adults, we need to ensure that when someone does disclose such abuse they are believed, that they are referred to the appropriate professionals, and that at all times the victim should feel safe, secure and supported. Failure to take those simple steps can lead the individual to believe that they are somehow to blame and that they are not believed. That is exactly what happened in this case.

Furthermore, when we look at child sexual abuse and rape, it should prompt us to act responsibly and immediately to protect not only the victim but any further victims who are in the sights of the predator. Although time and again Maíria was failed by those in her community who had been in the position to protect and help her, she is a remarkable young woman who is prepared to tell her story, not only to uncover the failures she endured but to empower others to come forward who have also been failed by those who they thought would protect them.

Over the past number of years, we in the Chamber have been talking about religious and state institutions, amongst others, and the cover-up of a culture of child abuse and rape. Following this, it will not surprise me if, over the next weeks or months, we discover more of these stories from all sections of our community. Maíria, through her disclosure, has opened the door for other victims on all sides to come forward and, for that, she must be commended.

Sadly, Sinn Féin, in an effort to protect its cause, failed to act appropriately. It failed a vulnerable young girl and reinforced the message that child abuse and rape are to be tolerated in its community, and, as we are all aware, this is not the first time.

Maíria Cahill has alleged that she informed the Irish Republican Army and members of Sinn Féin of her ordeal. Jennifer McCann, by her own admission, was informed of Maíria's case back in 2005. This was not in the midst of the Troubles; this was when child protection policies and protocols were as sophisticated as they are now. This was less than 10 years ago.

Ms McCann, I am sad to say, failed Maíria. She failed to support her, failed to tell the relevant people of the allegations of abuse and failed to report the allegations to ensure that they could be investigated. Ms McCann, and anyone else with prior knowledge of the case, let a sexual predator walk amongst their community, free to carry out further crimes, and, let us not forget that this crime — child rape — is deemed by most right-thinking people to be the most depraved.

I believe, given what I have said, that Jennifer McCann's position is now untenable. Ms McCann has a responsibility, through her position in the Assembly, for policy on historical institutional abuse and young people. In relation to child abuse, historically, she has been shown to have failed to follow protocol to protect a vulnerable young adult. We know that she had no role in the initial incident, but, by her failure to act, she has shown contempt for the impact on survivors of past alleged abuse. She should have no further role in historical abuse policy.

How can any survivors of such abuse have any confidence in this junior Minister, when, by her own admission, she was informed of alleged abuse and did nothing? Maíria trusted Jennifer McCann, and that trust was abused by Ms McCann's failure to act.

It is only right that survivors of abuse should have policy designed by someone who does not have such a smear on their background when it comes to dealing with alleged incidents of child abuse and rape.

Sexual predators rely on their victims' silence in order to continue to satisfy their deviant desires. They rely on the shame that they place on victims to keep them silent, and they rely on the doubts of society to question whether the incidents really happened. However, this victim did come forward, and she broke her silence, only to have the Irish Republican Army and members of Sinn Féin silence her and, in turn, feed the deviant desires of Maíria's sexual predator.

When child abuse or rape is reported and nothing is done, the person who received the report is, by default, aiding and abetting any further incidents of abuse carried out by the predator.

Rape is one of the most disempowering things that can happen to any individual. It violates a person's very being, and the ramifications are felt not just by the survivor but by our society as a whole. The victim is left to carry a burden that impacts on all aspects of their life and, in many cases, for all of their life. Rape must no longer be a taboo subject in our society. We must talk to our daughters and our sons in the same way as we discuss other issues. We must send out a strong message that rape and child abuse are wrong — they are unacceptable — and that we as an Assembly will not be seen to tolerate the cover-up of child rape.

We must ensure that all victims know who they can approach to get help, and ensure that those whom they do approach actually do help. Jennifer McCann's involvement must be investigated to see whether any breaches of code were committed. She must, I believe, stand down as junior Minister as a result of her failure in Maíria's case. To maintain her position is a conflict of interest and sends the wrong message regarding rape in our society. Rape should never happen, rape should never be tolerated, and rape should never, under any circumstances, be covered up in our community. I support the motion and the amendment.

Mr Attwood: I beg to move the following amendment:

We must always remember what the debate is about and what it is only about: abuse, cover-up and accountability. Whatever attempts have been made to obscure, dissemble, unpick and deny those facts, the debate remains about abuse, cover-up and accountability. It was only a few weeks ago that the Chamber unanimously passed a motion in respect of the abuse at Kincora. What was the response of the British Government? In denying our unanimous request to have Kincora part of the abuse inquiry in London, the Secretary of State said that it should remain part of the Hart inquiry in Northern Ireland and said that there would be the "fullest possible degree of cooperation" by all of Her Majesty's Government and its agencies to determine the facts. That is code for resistance to truth and accountability.

Let us also remember that, in the last few hours, another of the disappeared has been identified. That is another example of the culture of abuse and death and cover-up and lack of accountability. Whatever comes from the debate, let us recognise that it is only about speaking for victims and survivors and speaking up for truth and accountability.

Maíria Cahill is the latest Irishwoman who speaks truth to power. She follows in the footsteps of Catherine McCartney and her sisters, of Margaret McGuckin and those other children abused in institutions. Maíria Cahill, despite the trauma of her experience and despite those who still seek to traumatise her, continues to speak truth to power. She is a fearless, resilient, formidable woman. Irish democracy in all its expressions should stand with her. Those who seek to diminish her with viciousness in social media or through the releases of a Belfast lawyer must not prevail.

In this Chamber in November 2009, Gerry Adams said in respect of the Ryan report just published in Dublin:

Accountability and transparency were the standard that the president of Sinn Féin said should govern these issues that face Irish society. Fast-forward not 10 years, 10 months or even 10 days ago: fast-forward to an interview that Mr Adams gave on Irish radio yesterday morning. He was asked, "Where were abusers expelled to?" to which he replied, "'I don't know' is the direct answer to your question". Here we are in the eye of this storm, and the president of Sinn Féin when asked where abusers were expelled to replied, "'I don't know' is the direct answer to your question". We need to know where they were expelled to in order to assess the risk to people in this part of Ireland, across Ireland and on these islands in order to determine where they are and the level of risk. My question to Mr Adams, to Ms Ní Chuilín and to Jennifer McCann is this: is your answer to the question, "Where were abusers expelled to?" the same as Garry Adams's, which was, "I don't know is the direct answer"? That is unacceptable and is unacceptable to Irish democracy.

Later in the same interview, Mr Adams was asked, "Do you accept that Maíria Cahill was forced by the IRA to face her attacker?", to which Mr Adams replied, "I don't know. That's the truth of it". Maíria Cahill says that not only was she forced to face her attacker but she states:

Given that that is her testimony, which has been repeated in many places over the last three weeks and privately many times before that, how can Mr Gerry Adams, the leader of the Provisional movement and the president of Sinn Féin, who says that he believes that Maíria Cahill was abused, say, not last year or last month but yesterday, to the people of Ireland in answer to the question, "Do you accept that Maíria Cahill was forced by the IRA to face her attacker?", "I don't know. That's the truth of it"? The question to Mr Adams, to Ms Ní Chuilín and to Ms McCann is: do they agree with Mr Adams's response to the question that she was forced by the IRA to face her attacker, which was, "I don't know. That's the truth of it". Do you believe that that is living up to the standards of transparency and accountability that Mr Adams articulated in this place in the Ryan debate in 2009?

There is a third question when it comes to transparency and accountability. In 1999, Gerry Adams told his ard fheis:

That was 1999, which was around the time when the IRA was carrying out its first inquiry and interrogation of Maíria Cahill. Shortly thereafter, Maíria Cahill met Gerry Adams, and the IRA ended its inquiry in March 2000. Three months later, the man who Gerry Adams and other people say abused Maíria Cahill was promoted to a post in Community Restorative Justice Ireland in west Belfast. He was given that post, which was published, publicised and promoted in Sinn Féin's newspaper, 'An Phoblacht', where people were advised that the person who abused Maíria Cahill was now working on domestic abuse. If there was ever a moment that proved a point about the culture that prevailed in that organisation at that time, that was it. Based on the statements from Sinn Féin and others since the 'Spotlight' programme, you have to conclude that, if an abuser, at that time, was given additional responsibilities and given all that has come to pass since, it has not yet registered with Sinn Féin.

This is the latest chapter of abuse on this island, and it revolves around Maíria Cahill. I fear that there are more terrible chapters in the story of abuse to come. On behalf of Maíria Cahill and all the Maíria Cahills — there may be many, many others — her words are the most fearless and enduring. Her work in speaking truth to power tells us all that we need to hear. She says:

She adds:

She concludes:

Mr M McGuinness: The DUP motion before the Assembly and the accompanying amendment from the SDLP are not about helping or supporting victims of sexual abuse. Those behind the motion are solely and singularly interested in attacking Sinn Féin and are blatantly politicising this very sensitive issue in the most crass and self-serving way. The motion is a wholly unjustified and unfounded attack on the integrity and sincerity of one of the most dedicated and capable Members of this Assembly, my friend and colleague junior Minister Jennifer McCann. The motion is a disgrace. We have come to expect this type of gutter politics from some elements in the DUP. Gregory Campbell's insulting comments on the Irish language yesterday —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order, please. The Member will resume his seat.

I want to make it clear that many Members have told me that they regard this debate as probably one of the most important that has taken place. I therefore appeal to all Members to allow those who are speaking to be heard.

Mr M McGuinness: Gregory Campbell's insulting comments on the Irish language yesterday and the derogatory comments of Jim Wells about the people of west Belfast are in the same vein. Therefore, we expect this type of insulting and personalised politicking from unrepentant bigots in the DUP.

Even more disgraceful, however, is the collusion between the SDLP and the DUP in their combined and cowardly attack on Jennifer McCann. The SDLP has sunk to new depths with this cynical exercise. It is attempting to exploit the difficult issue of sexual abuse for the most selfish and self-serving political reasons. The SDLP amendment is a disgrace, and the SDLP Members who tabled it should be ashamed of themselves.

What has to be remembered is that the allegations at the centre of the debate have been tested in court and that those accused were acquitted. Members are now arguing that due process should be set aside or ignored. They are doing so not out of concern for an individual victim but because they see her suffering as their political opportunity. That is a very sad reflection of the priorities of some in the Chamber. Let me be absolutely clear on this point: I have no tolerance whatsoever for abusers and nothing but empathy and sympathy for Maíria Cahill and those who have been abused, but there is a duty on all of us to confront the issue of sexual abuse in Irish society and to do so in a responsible way, and to do it in a way that enables all victims and survivors to access the support and justice that they need and are entitled to.

That is why I am proposing the establishment of an all-island initiative, resourced by and under the remit of the Irish Government and the Northern Executive, through the North/South Ministerial Council. It will ensure that victims and survivors have access to the professional support services that they need, and, crucially, it will be a channel through which complaints can be made to the appropriate statutory agency or police service.

Let me be very clear: in her contact with Maíria Cahill, seven years after the abuse occurred, Jennifer McCann acted at all times with care and compassion in attempting to support and assist a work colleague who, she believed, was the victim of serious sexual abuse.

Jennifer McCann did absolutely nothing wrong then or since. There is absolutely no basis or substance to any suggestion that she is in breach of the ministerial code. On the contrary, in her role as junior Minister, Jennifer has been the most effective and determined champion of victims, particularly in her work with the victims of historical institutional abuse. Jennifer will continue in that important role with my total support and confidence.

As long as I am deputy First Minister —

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

Mr M McGuinness: — Jennifer McCann will continue, as junior Minister, to assist me in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order, please. Before I call the next Member, I remind Members that courtesy, good temper and moderation are the standards required in the debate. I am not happy with the number of Members who have been shouting from sedentary positions, and I will not allow it.

Mr Nesbitt: Deputy Speaker, I support the motion and the amendment. I also acknowledge your last intervention, when you made it clear that, in your view, this is a very important debate, notwithstanding the disgraceful remarks of the deputy First Minister, who questions the motivation for the debate.

Let us talk about the motivation that drives Maíria Cahill. Some people think she is very brave. I do not think she thinks she is very brave; I think that she is driven by justice and by doing the right thing, not just for herself, because she is not an isolated case. There are others. There are many, many others. A significant number have come forward since she put herself into the public domain. I commend her for that, because a lot of those people thought that they were on their own and that their experience was unique. Now they know that they are not the only ones and they do not have to travel this journey alone. Some even approached me. I think that that is remarkable. Once proud republican women came to a unionist and asked whether I could help to break the interminable mental torture that they are suffering because of this abuse. The motivation of Maíria Cahill is to do the right thing.

I first met Maíria Cahill about six years ago when I was a commissioner for victims and survivors. We met in the centre of Belfast, and she told me her story. That story is unchanged in the last six years. I believe it. I also know that she was aware, even then, of what she was taking on. She was taking on an organisation that purported to defend the nationalist community. It purported to defend its people, as it called them, but on its terms. What were those terms? "Do as we say, or it is tarring and feathering. Or it is kneecapping. Or it is torture — physically. It is torture mentally. It is abduction. It is murder. It is beyond murder: we will murder you and we will disappear your body and mentally torture your families for decades". That is who she was taking on, and now we discover that, to all those weapons, we have to add sexual violence and abuse. Maíria Cahill knew exactly what sort of organisation she was taking on.

Republicans say that they are for victims. As a journalist, I had to study republican literature. I read the writings of Gerry Adams. 'The Politics of Irish Freedom' is a very interesting book. I was stunned by his views on what he called "mistakes". I am thinking, for example, of an IRA bomb in Warrenpoint, where a young girl who worked in a shop was blown up. She was an innocent victim, or "a mistake", as Gerry Adams called it, but, rather than apologising for the mistake, he criticised the British Government and the media for, "cynically exploiting our mistakes". I mention that because it shows that this is an organisation for whom protecting the organisation, no matter what the cost to the victims, is in republican DNA. The organisation comes first, and that is what Maíria Cahill is taking on. Sexual violence and abuse is, therefore, a legacy issue and it should be in the talks that the Secretary of State is hosting. Not just republican violence but Kincora. For years and decades, we have heard that the British security services used vulnerable boys as sexual bait. Let us discover whether that is true or not, because if it is true, it is a national scandal.

The motion highlights junior Minister McCann's responsibilities in relation to the policy relating to historical institutional abuse. I have two questions for Ms McCann. We all know that there was more abuse outside of institutions than in institutions, but OFMDFM has not brought forward any process to match the HIA inquiry. Is that because to have an inquiry into abuse outside of institutions would expose the IRA? Are you protecting the IRA from an inquiry into abuse that took place outside institutions? There are many more victims outside of historical institutional abuse than inside it, and you know that. Mr Deputy Speaker, she knows that.

Secondly, Ms McCann went to London, in June this year, to a summit to end sexual violence in conflict. She said, according to the Executive:

Why did you not take Maíria Cahill? Was that not the story that needed to be told at the global conference?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I remind the Member that he must make his remarks through the Chair.

Mr Nesbitt: I apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Maíria Cahill should have been at that global summit on sexual violence in conflict. It is a disgrace that she was not given that opportunity.

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

Mr Lunn: We will support the motion and the amendment. First, I would like to offer my sympathy and support to Maíria Cahill. She is the victim in this matter, and I admire her determination and attitude through a dreadful ordeal. I have no reason to doubt the main thrust of her allegation, starting with the original rapes during 1996-97 when she was a girl of 15 and 16. Some of us are fathers of daughters, and I can just imagine the feeling that that would stir in me if it happened to my daughter.

Those allegations have long been accepted by most right-thinking people, even in the republican movement, right up to the highest levels. The man who committed the rapes was a prominent republican, Martin Morris, apparently a friend of the Cahill family, perhaps even a distant relative by marriage. Maíria eventually made a complaint to the police, but the case collapsed as she withdrew her evidence. The first question there would be why. I will come back to that.

There had been an IRA investigation of whatever kind. The words "interrogation" and "kangaroo court" come to mind, but it certainly seems to have included a forced confrontation between Maíria and Mr Morris in the year 2000. We have the version of Gerry Adams that he organised that and other meetings out of concern for Maíria's welfare; a suggestion that, frankly, would be laughable if it was not so serious. To suggest to someone in those circumstances that some rape victims — by implication perhaps including Maíria Cahill — actually enjoyed it, is utterly disgusting, although if the records of Twitter and other media are to be believed, Mr Adams does hold views on those matters that the rest of us would not want to be associated with.

Plainly, the republican movement has tried to cover up those events and silence Maíria Cahill. It is very much to her credit that she is strong enough to carry on, and I wish her well.

There are questions. First, why would the IRA wish to protect a rapist, whose victim was a member of a very prominent republican family, just because he was himself a member and volunteer? Secondly, what would have happened to him if he had not been a member of the republican movement? I think that we all know the answer to that. Thirdly, why did Maíria Cahill withdraw her evidence? I think, by the time the police investigation came along, she was probably a girl of about 20, still very vulnerable and put under intolerable pressure by the republican movement. She buckled under that pressure and it is to her credit that she has come back again.

Turning to the motion, the main point being made is about the actions, or lack of action, by Jennifer McCann. Ms McCann was not an MLA or a junior Minister in 2005, when it seems she was in contact with Maíria Cahill, but she had, however, been a prominent IRA member, and it seems probable that she knew about the case long before that. I do not know the type of investigation being proposed, but there is enough in this matter to merit a fuller inquiry. We will, therefore, support the motion and the SDLP amendment, which makes a better job of the proposal entirely.

Maíria Cahill has bravely shone a light into the murky world of a terrorist organisation; a world of silence, self-protection and misplaced loyalty.

Mr A Maginness: Will the Member give way?

Mr Lunn: Sure.

Mr A Maginness: The Member has referred to Ms McCann, and she has an important role in the historical institutional abuse inquiry. Yesterday, in London, a lady who was appointed to head a similar type of inquiry resigned because of alleged associations with Leon Brittan. Previous to that, Lady Butler-Sloss also resigned, given other associations with Lord Brittan. Given that they resigned over those allegations, would it not be appropriate for Ms McCann to resign as a junior Minister, given that she faces similar allegations — in fact, worse allegations?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): The Member has an additional minute.

Mr Lunn: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Member has made his point; I do not have time to dwell on it.

As I was saying, Ms Cahill has shone a light into a very murky world. It is a world, evidently, where the rights of an innocent victim are secondary to the interests of the organisation, be it the IRA or Sinn Féin. I hope that she achieves the closure that she deserves. I hope that the PPS can find a way through this to fully investigate the whole sorry saga, including the violence perpetrated on other victims, because it is plain to see that there are a lot of other victims out there. I hope that they can use the opportunity to come forward and that we can bring some closure to a lot of people who deserve it.

Mr Givan: It is important that we treat this issue sensitively. It is a matter that should be above party political point-scoring. However, the contribution made by the deputy First Minister will, I think, stand in the public record as having brought shame on the office that he holds. It is disappointing that he has continued in the same vein as the president of Sinn Féin, and that is to undermine Maíria Cahill and to seek to discredit Maíria Cahill — and to do it when Maíria Cahill is in the Gallery of the Chamber is, I think, a callous disregard for victims and their feelings.

Consider how this issue has been dealt with by the republican movement: Gerry Adams has said, as others have, that he believes that she was raped. However, when it comes to the IRA interrogation — the kangaroo court that was established — he does not know whether that happened. That tells a story in and of itself. Sinn Féin is circling the wagons and using Maíria Cahill, in a way, to attack the SDLP, my party and others. Whilst this issue involves senior members of Sinn Féin, it would be wrong for all the political parties in the Chamber to ignore it just because Sinn Féin is involved in it.

Mr Poots: Will the Member give way?

Mr Givan: I will.

Mr Poots: A few weeks ago we had a debate on Kincora, and there was absolute unanimity in the House in its condemnation of what took place there and what needed to happen. I would love Sinn Féin Members to stand up in the same condemnation that they and we all engaged in a few weeks ago.

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

Mr Givan: I agree entirely with the Member. As we consider how we can take this forward, this motion having been passed, there will need to be an inquiry. The Justice Committee will consider this tomorrow, and we will have options that will need to be decided upon. However, I think that there is merit in our having an inquiry.

The Public Prosecution Service has announced that it is having an independent inquiry. The Police Ombudsman's Office has been put forward as an organisation that is having its own independent inquiry. I do not accept that that is appropriate and the best way for this to be dealt with. In and of itself, by all means, let them happen, but that does not go far enough. It does not go far enough because of how the PPS handled a similar case in respect of the president of Sinn Féin when it came to his niece Áine.

A press release by the PPS announcing the current review states:

I welcomed that press release, which was issued very quickly in response to the 'Spotlight' programme. In response to the UTV 'Insight' programme over a year ago, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Barra McGrory, said that he:

That was over a year ago. The Attorney General produced his report, and I have a letter dated May 2014 stating that it was sent to the PPS and that it "contains recommendations". We do not know what the report's recommendations or findings are, yet the PPS is burying it. One has to ask why. It certainly is not in keeping with its most recent statement that it wants to be open and transparent about this issue. Indeed, the PPS has said in respect of the Gerry Adams case that the issue of publication of the report will be reviewed by the Public Prosecution Service after the Liam Adams Court of Appeal case is handled. There is not even a commitment to publish it, just to review whether it should be published.

This party will not stand for any whitewash which, I believe, is being engaged in by the Public Prosecution Service. It is of concern to me, given the role that the current director of the Public Prosecution Service had in representing senior republicans, that he has to step aside repeatedly because of that conflict of interest. The handling of this case in respect of Gerry Adams concerns me, and I believe that it calls into question his credibility. Public confidence in the PPS is critical for that organisation and the wider criminal justice system. It is vital that justice is not just done but seen to be done. I believe that Barra McGrory, given how the previous case was handled and his conflicts of interest, should consider his position as the director of the Public Prosecution Service.

The Police Ombudsman has not dealt with the complaint about the case in the UTV 'Insight' programme either. That is why there needs to be another independent inquiry, in which the public can have confidence that it will get to the truth. I hope that, at the Committee meeting tomorrow, members will come forward and seek to deal with that. I, of course, will be willing, as the deputy First Minister indicated, to have North/South cooperation in any inquiry that the Justice Committee might seek to establish. I support the motion.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

As someone who has dealt with and supported victims of domestic and sexual abuse, including women prisoners sexually assaulted by prison officers in Armagh and Maghaberry prisons during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, I am saddened that today's motion and amendment have little to do with helping or indeed supporting victims. Rather, some of the other parties have chosen to politicise the serious issue of sexual abuse and indulge themselves in a bout of political point scoring. None of this has anything to do with meeting the needs of victims. All the evidence and research on sexual abusers show clearly that they come from all walks of life, from all backgrounds and from all classes. The motion, however, seeks to turn all of that evidence on its head and instead focuses solely on one group. It demeans the suffering and pain of all those who have been abused, and it fails victims.

Part of the motion is targeted at Jennifer McCann, who did all that she could to assist a vulnerable young women who disclosed to her in confidence that she had been sexually abused seven years previously. The producers of the 'Spotlight' programme that triggered the trial by media of the Maíria Cahill case deemed the outcome of the judicial processes inconvenient facts in their attempt to get a headline-grabbing programme. In a bid to get better ratings, due process was ignored and key facts omitted to suit the bias of the programme's conclusions. It is one thing for a TV show to drive a coach and horses through the law and the right to a fair trial in open court; it is another altogether for some Members to set aside fairness and process in attempting to adjudicate on the case. Therefore, I ask Members whether they support due process. Do they have confidence in the PSNI? Do they have confidence in the PPS? Do they have confidence in the courts? It is the case that neither guilt nor innocence is to be determined by 'Spotlight' or indeed by anybody in the Chamber. They simply cannot have it both ways. Those Members, unlike Jennifer McCann, have offered no practical help to Maíria or other victims other than to use their distress to score points.

I would like to remind Members that the issue that we debate today is simply not a legacy issue. According to figures issued by NIACRO, 173 alleged sex offenders were referred between 2006 and 2012 for resettlement. Many of them were under threat from the same loyalist paramilitaries as the unionist parties are cosying up to in a pan-unionist front in their bid to force a loyalist march through a nationalist area. If the proposers of the motion and the amendment were truly serious about tackling abuse in our society, we would have a motion and an amendment that deal with abuse no matter what its source. The answer for victims and the wider public is obvious. Some people in the Chamber want to indulge in party-political point scoring. They do not care if it inflicts more hurt and pain on victims. I have to say that the SDLP's amendment and support for this DUP attack are shameful and disgraceful.

Let me finish by telling anyone out there who has been a victim of abuse to come forward and report it. If you need help and support, many organisations have the appropriate skills and training to assist. As for my party, we will support you in any way we can.

We will not support the motion or the amendment.

Mr Poots: First of all, I want to say that rape is always wrong. It does not matter whether it was carried out by a policeman in Kincora, a priest in Rubane or a Provo in Ballymurphy: rape is always wrong. Here we have, today, Sinn Féin going back to its old standards and adopting the mantra of victimhood. We have poor Gerry complaining that the Government are picking on him, and poor Jennifer complaining that the Assembly is picking on her. The victim here is not Sinn Féin; the victims are teenage girls who were raped, abused, bullied and subjected to kangaroo courts by the IRA.

I have no issue whatsoever with condemning anybody from the community that I represent, no matter how close they may have been to any of us at any stage. I think that Sinn Féin is failing and failing greatly today by not standing up and saying that what happened was wrong, condemning it and saying that it will do everything in its power to ensure that other young people who were abused in this manner have the opportunity to have their case heard and properly interrogated and for the people who carried out the heinous crime of rape to be brought to justice. Sinn Féin really needs to do that. It really needs to stand up for and with the victims of sex abuse, irrespective of whether it happened in Kincora, west Belfast or the Creggan. Any less than that standard will diminish the party greatly as a consequence.

Mr Givan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Poots: Yes.

Mr Givan: Does the Member agree that, rather than asking for and seeking people to come forward, the message that has been going out from Sinn Féin and indeed in the Chamber from Martin McGuinness and Carál Ní Chuilín is a warning to those people not to come forward because they will be bullied and targeted by the republican movement? They are intimidating those people out of trying to come forward.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): The Member has an additional minute.

Mr Poots: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Therein lies the problem. Mr Adams now uses the fact that his dead father was a paedophile.

In the papers a couple of weeks ago, we read an accusation that Joe Cahill was a paedophile. It seems that, for Sinn Féin, the organisation is sacrosanct, must remain intact and is more important than anybody else, including victims of sex abuse.

We have deep concerns about how the authorities are handling these matters. The Minister of Justice does not intend to investigate the issue. That will be left to the Justice Committee, which I hope will have enough powers. The Minister has offered his cooperation, but he could have more powers than the Justice Committee to carry out such an investigation. The fact that the director of the Public Prosecution Service sat on a report carried out for him by the Attorney General for over a year causes us deep concern. As Mr Givan rightly pointed out, if the director has to keep stepping aside from issues, perhaps he needs to consider whether he is the right man for the job. We need to look at that and address it.

The Police Ombudsman has corresponded with Mr Givan, indicating that a report that that office carried out was completed and forwarded to senior managers for their approval. When was that? It was 10 April 2014 — seven months ago. The Police Ombudsman has hidden that completed report from public view. One has to ask: does Sinn Féin have its man in the Police Ombudsman's office? Frankly, it is not good enough to sit on something as serious as this for seven months without the public having their opportunity to hear what was said. I believe very clearly that we have not been well served by the Public Prosecution Service in these issues. The sooner it tells us the truth of what the report contains rather than hiding behind the Liam Adams appeal, the better for society in Northern Ireland.

Sinn Féin has covered up abuse for a considerable time. It stands to reason that, with young men on the run in safe houses with young girls, things happened that should not have happened. Let us some honesty and integrity for once —

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

Mr Poots: — in their lives.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Before calling the next Member, I remind Members again that you must address your remarks through the Chair. There must be no remarks from a sedentary position.

Ms J McCann: I am very aware that there is an ongoing review into this case. In recent days, two more victims have released a public statement in which they have expressed concern about how the case is becoming politicised. I certainly do not want to add anything that will cause further distress to any of the victims in this case. That said, I feel very strongly that my credibility not only as a junior Minister but in a personal sense as a woman, and particularly a mother, is under attack through a disgraceful motion. I totally refute what Members said during the debate and over the past few weeks. I totally refute any inference in the motion or in what has been said that I did anything improper in the actions I took in relation to this case. I would not cover up or protect anyone who has been accused of rape or sexual abuse; I would never do that.

Maíria Cahill was a young woman of 23 or 24 years of age when she disclosed to me that she had been raped when she was 16. She told me that in 2005, some six or seven years after the abuse took place. At the time, she had recently started work in the local community forum, where I worked as a community worker. She disclosed the information to me in confidence as a work colleague, and I sought to help her in whatever way I could at that time. Anyone who has worked with people who have been raped or who are victims of sexual assault will know that that is what you do. You help the person as best you can at that time. It was very clear to me that she was quite distressed, and I was very concerned about her safety and well-being. As she appeared to be very vulnerable, I advised Maíria to seek the help of a counsellor. I spoke directly to a member of her close family to tell them of my concerns about her vulnerability, and I advised them to seek help for her.

I was aware that her family and others who were much closer to her than I was — I had known her for only a couple of months — had been aware of it for years before Maíria told me. So, I totally reject the allegations that have been levelled against me here that I acted improperly in any way at the time. At no time did Maíria indicate to me that she wanted me to report this, and I did what I would do for anyone in those circumstances and what I felt she needed at that time: I advised her to seek counselling.

One night, she was particularly distressed and was on her own. I advised her to not stay on her own. I was concerned about what might happen, because she seemed extremely vulnerable. That night, I invited her to stay in my home, and, in fact, I took my young child out of her bed to let Maíria sleep in it, because I was afraid about what she would do if she were left alone.

When I first saw the motion, I was extremely upset, and I am still upset with some of the accusations that have been levelled at me. All that I did was try to help someone. I have not covered up anything or protected anyone who was responsible for sexual abuse or rape. That is not, and has never been, the case. At no time since 2005 has Maíria or her solicitor or her legal team or indeed the police approached me to ask me to make a statement on the issue. Maíria herself did not report it until 2010. When I contacted the police, they told my solicitor that I am not required to make a statement in this case, so there has been absolutely no improper conduct in my actions.

I have worked for many, many years with victims of abuse and domestic violence, and I have accompanied them to the police, the PPS and the relevant statutory bodies for help when they have made that choice. It is their choice to do so. I would have taken the same course of action without hesitation had Maíria asked me to do so.

The other political parties in the Chamber have been very quick to come in here today and scramble over each other with accusations and engage in finger-pointing. Most people listening will question your motives and, like me, will see this motion, as my colleagues have said, as nothing more than an opportunity to use this as party politics. Shame on you for doing that.

Some Members: Shame on you.

Ms J McCann: I want to finish by saying —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order, please. The Member will resume her seat.

Ms J McCann: All the victims in this case, including Maíria, are entitled to justice —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order, please. The Member will resume her seat.

Ms J McCann: — and I hope that this review will enable them to do that —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Is the Member finished?

Ms J McCann: — and to get the closure that they seek.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I asked for the cooperation of all Members to allow this debate to be conducted with dignity. I am extremely disappointed that one, two or three people on my right are persistently shouting from a sedentary position. If that continues, I will be forced to take action.

Mrs D Kelly: I am pleased to speak in this debate on behalf of the SDLP. I am pleased that today, once again, our party has shown that there is clear blue water between its principles and values and those of Sinn Féin. I make no apology for that, and it not the SDLP or any other party, bar Sinn Féin, that is politicising the debate. It has sought over the past number of weeks to trash the good name of Maíria Cahill. She is the victim in all of this, not Martin McGuinness, not Carál Ní Chuilín and not Jennifer McCann.

I listened with interest to what Jennifer McCann said in the last five minutes, because she said it with a degree of passion and emotion. Not once did she mention the name of her party president. Not once did she say that the principles that her colleague the deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, applied to the then leader of the Catholic Church, Seán Brady, on the cover-up of clerical sexual abuse should apply to the president of Sinn Féin. Jennifer McCann has let herself down, as has Carál Ní Chuilín and all the women in Sinn Féin who have, throughout the island of Ireland, ridiculed Maíria Cahill and, instead of trying to support her, tried to bring her good name into disrepute.

You no longer have any right to stand on any platform on any feminist issue, when you cannot stand up for the victim of the most vile abuse imaginable.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs D Kelly: Others have talked about how the criminal justice system failed Maíria Cahill and other victims. I ask the Justice Committee and others, in their discussions and negotiations with the police and the PPS, to ask why there is continued delay in other cases, which will be high profile, where there are allegations of sexual abuse and cover-up by the republican movement.

For me, today was the day in which the IRA and Sinn Féin morphed into one organisation — they absolutely morphed. All that Sinn Féin has attempted to do over the last hour, and indeed the last number of weeks, is protect its institutions and organisation. Where were the words of condemnation of the kangaroo court and those who participated in it? Where were the words to say how the criminal justice system has failed Maíria Cahill and others? I did not hear them. All I heard was that Sinn Féin is the victim and the other parties are playing party political games with the issue. Nobody does victimhood better than Sinn Féin; nobody on this island. They are always the victims. Many of us in the House find a great deal to dispute in the definition that Mr Adams would give of "decent" people. I heard his reply to Enda Kenny in the Dáil. I can tell you this, Mr Deputy Speaker: his words chilled me to the very core.

Mr Hussey: Will the Member give way?

Mrs D Kelly: Yes.

Mr Hussey: In the earlier debate, I am sure that the Member listened with interest as many of the Sinn Féin Members commented on people in Donegal and Louth and other counties in the Republic. Do you share my concerns that Sinn Féin and the IRA sent rapists to the Republic of Ireland to get them out of this jurisdiction?

Mrs D Kelly: I am coming to that point. Thank you for that intervention. My colleague Alex Attwood did ask where the abusers are now. What is the risk assessment? Has information been shared with the PSNI and an Garda Síochána about the whereabouts of those abusers? Are they working in community centres with young children, in the way that Liam Adams was able to? Are some of them, as I believe, across the water in GB? I have not heard anything from Sinn Féin that gives me any confidence that they take their obligations seriously in this matter. They certainly have not put the interests of children and women at the heart of their deliberations and comments in the last few weeks and months, nor today. They had ample opportunity today to clear a number of matters up and did not.

I welcome the introduction made by Paula Bradley. In her contribution, Paula acknowledged that this type of vile crime happened right across the community. I did not hear any other Member, other than those in Sinn Féin, relate this to the fact that, for any inquiry to be fulsome and total, it should look at all aspects, or that, regardless of where the perpetrator came from, all institutions should be treated the same. That, to me, is an Ireland of equals, not how some in Sinn Féin have been protected. Some people were shot, if not killed — there were certainly punishment beatings and people were shot in the kneecaps — if they were alleged to be abusers, whilst others were able to get on the train to Dundalk. Sinn Féin has a lot to answer. I am really sorry that today, of all days, they could not rise above it. I pity many of them and wonder how they sleep at night.

Mr Elliott: It is with some trepidation, almost, that I speak in this debate. I know that you have tried to control the debate as best you can, Deputy Speaker. The debate is about two groups of people: the abused and the abusers. I believe that it is right that I should spend a little time dealing with both those groups and, first, the abused.

We are rightly focusing this evening on Maíria Cahill. While there have clearly been more people abused in a similar way by the same abusers, I contend that Maíria Cahill is an extremely brave lady in what she has brought to the fore. Her story is torturous and painful. It is torturous and painful for me listening to it, and I can only imagine how torturous and painful it is for Maíria Cahill and others who have been abused as they have. I am certain that there are many people who have a huge sense of support for Maíria Cahill, people who have undergone similar abuse but who, for a variety of reasons, cannot go public in the way that Maíria Cahill has. While I have not had the opportunity to speak directly to or meet Maíria Cahill, I am sure that this process is not easy for her. She has not had an easy time so far, and I dare to say and contend that she will not have an easy time as we move forward.

What about the abusers and those who protect the abusers? Many of us in the House are very aware of the capabilities of the IRA as those who have been responsible for the torture of humans in our society. Many people in Northern Ireland, including Maíria Cahill, know at first hand of the IRA's actions. How have those in the spotlight viewed other abusers in the past? I am sure that people will join me in acknowledging how Sinn Féin members have described and pointed the finger at the Roman Catholic Church around the child sex abuse levelled against that Church. Sinn Féin representatives, including the Sinn Féin vice-president, Mary Lou McDonald, the Sinn Féin TD Aengus Ó Snodaigh, the Sinn Féin deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, and the Sinn Féin president, Gerry Adams, have lined up to lambaste the Roman Catholic Church and others who were linked to the sex abuse cases. Indeed, Mr Ó Snodaigh said:

He goes on to say that the position of Mr Adams and Sinn Féin is:

Maybe some of that should be reflected back on Mr McGuinness's party at this stage in light of what came out in the 'Spotlight' programme that we are debating this evening. There are many other quotes that I could use, but I am sure that they are available to everyone.

What we must ensure is that, following this debate, the matter does not close up and is not allowed to drift. This boil must be lanced. Over recent weeks, we have heard of ongoing investigations, inquiries and potential inquiries, but we must be careful that we do not have a piecemeal approach. I take on board Mrs Kelly's assertion on all this. We have heard of a review by the Public Prosecution Service, an investigation by the Police Ombudsman and a potential Justice Committee inquiry. I support all those, but what we need is an overarching mechanism to ensure that we end this and lance the boil. We cannot allow this to continue. We cannot allow it to drift. I think that there is a responsibility on the Justice Minister in the Executive to take overall control of this situation and ensure that each of those inquiries reports to him.

Mr Irwin: I will say first that at the very foundation of this debate is the well-being of a young woman who has been subject to sexual abuse; that must be remembered at all times. The fact that this abuse occurred within an organisation that has rained terror on a whole community for decades makes the suffering of Maíria Cahill all the more concerning. Maíria Cahill has brought to light her harrowing experiences, and no one can fail to be moved by the trauma that she has suffered and the obvious emotional upheaval that she experienced in bringing the matter into the public arena. Her allegations are concerning for the House, given that senior members of Sinn Féin have been implicated. We have witnessed, via the media, a shift in the stance of Sinn Féin elected politicians, who have gone from outright denial of her suffering to a guarded acknowledgment of the situation. However, they still refuse to come forward with the truth about the cover-up of that horrendous episode.

Maíria Cahill has been subject to further abuse and trauma since her story came to light. It is shocking to see the depths that people will stoop to on the Internet, with their horrific comments and such cold and callous disregard for the suffering she has endured. That, of course, is not unique to Maíria's situation; we have also witnessed Anne Travers's withdrawal from social media this week as a result of the tirade of online abuse she has suffered from militant republicans, who have an agenda to further abuse and attempt to discredit anyone who dares to shine a light into the darkest corners of the IRA.

It was against such a backdrop that the motion seeks to bring forward —

Mrs McKevitt: Will the Member give way?

Mr Irwin: OK.

Mrs McKevitt: Does the Member agree that the PSNI should be able to investigate comments that have been made on the Anne Travers and Maíria Cahill cases on social media, under the harassment and hate crime legislation?

Mr Irwin: I thank the Member for her intervention. She is absolutely correct; the PSNI should be investigating that.

It is against such a backdrop that the motion seeks to bring forward a proposal for an investigation into the actions of a Member of the House, namely Jennifer McCann in her role as a junior Minister in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. There are certain questions that should be asked and answers that must be given about that very serious and important issue. That should be done within the correct framework of an inquiry that looks comprehensively at the concerns that have been raised by Maíria Cahill and the actions or inactions of Ms McCann as someone who was informed about the abuse.

On a wider theme that should concern everyone, in the recent past, we have witnessed senior Sinn Féin members publicly object to the continuance of Cardinal Seán Brady in his role following the child abuse scandal within the Catholic Church. Yet those same Sinn Féin members now show great hypocrisy by refusing to engage fully in explaining their roles within the IRA and the cover-up of the abuse of Maíria Cahill.

Mr D McIlveen: I thank the Member for giving way. Will he agree with me that Sinn Féin has, for many years, claimed to be the bastion for the protection of women's rights? Will he further agree that, while Ms McCann remains in post and questions remain about her conduct and how she has dealt with the protection of a very vulnerable young woman, any future attempt by Sinn Féin to take such a stance would be utter hypocrisy?

Mr Irwin: I thank the Member for his intervention. He made a very important point.

The fact that, since Maíria Cahill has gone public in telling her story, other people have come forward to her with similar stories of sexual abuse at the hands of the IRA is a further cause for concern. In an age in which sexual abuse is the subject of the greatest scrutiny, it is vital that an inquiry is undertaken, given that Ms McCann MLA, in her role as a junior Minister, has responsibilities in the area of historical institutional abuse and policies regarding the protection of children. The revelation by Maíria Cahill of a kangaroo court system within the IRA is a further affront to justice and the victims of sexual abuse. As Maíria herself has said, the trauma of facing her abuser was immense and plunged her deeper into distress.

The issue shines a very bright light into the dark and murky world of the IRA. People were brought under great duress and had their grief and distress compounded in a way that is both distasteful and unjustifiable. Maíria Cahill has been courageous in coming forward with details of her trauma, and the House must do what it can to assist her and other victims of abuse in having their crimes fully investigated. I support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I call Mr Alban Maginness, who has two minutes.

Mr A Maginness: The debate is primarily about sexual abuse and the cover-up of that sexual abuse by the republican movement in relation to Maíria Cahill, but it also involves standards in office. Therefore, there is a focus on Jennifer McCann. In her address to the Assembly, she failed to persuade me and, I believe, other Members. She failed to explain why she did not report the abuse and why she did not proactively do something to defend the interests of Maíria Cahill. She did not do that, and that reflects very badly on her personally, as an office holder. She holds the office of junior Minister in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and has responsibility for the historical institutional abuse inquiry. She has a very sensitive role, yet she has been involved in what appears to be, if not a full cover-up, at least a suppression of that cover-up or a suppression of the allegations made by Maíria Cahill. That reflects badly on her.

Earlier in the debate, I mentioned that, in England, Lady Butler-Sloss and Fiona Woolf had resigned over what, I believe, are less serious allegations. Where are the standards in public office? Martin McGuinness rails at us and says that we are shameful, a disgrace and so forth. He impugns the motives of people in the House, but let me tell you —

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

Mr A Maginness: — that what is disgraceful and shameful is the collusion of the IRA and Sinn Féin in expelling people from Northern Ireland to the South in order to cover up their nefarious activities.

Mr Eastwood: I did not think that I could be shocked in the House, but I am genuinely shocked by the way in which the debate has moved. Earlier, when I saw Martin McGuinness's name on the list of Members to speak, I said to colleagues, "Finally, Sinn Féin has realised that this is out of control and that somebody needs to take it in hand, make a corporate apology and tell the whole truth". I really, really believed that that was what would happen today. I am shocked and saddened that it has not happened and that, again, we have heard a denial. We have seen a refusal to accept and deal with the issues surrounding the Maíria Cahill case.

When Maíria Cahill — I believe her, by the way — was abused, it was she who was investigated. Her story was covered up, and then, when it came out because she had the guts to tell it in the public domain, her story was denied. After that, her character was assassinated. Then, all of sudden, we saw the trolls — the nameless Internet trolls — unleashed, like something out of an MI5 playbook, to assassinate Maíria Cahill's character and portray anybody who stood with her and said publicly that they believed her as playing politics and engaging in political point scoring.

When Sinn Féin, rightly, along with a lot of other Members, condemned and challenged the Catholic Church on its abuse and cover-up in specific incidents across the island, it was holding people to account and rightly so. However, when anybody challenges Sinn Féin's account or the IRA's account of what happened in this or any other case, it is political point scoring. Do people really think that, when asked by an abuse victim, democratically elected politicians on this island will stay quiet about an issue of this magnitude? We will not. I do not feel one bit ashamed because my name is on an amendment calling for accountability and truth from an organisation that does not have a good record when it comes to accountability or truth — just ask the families of the bodies that are buried all across the border counties on this island.

We have to make sure that we recognise that this is about victims. There have been many victims of sexual abuse, cover-up and denial and institutional abuse, cover-up and denial, not least from the state, from the security services, from the police, from the army, from loyalist paramilitaries and from the IRA. This is not the only case that people know of across our communities. It is very sad that the people and the communities that suffered most at the hands of the British state have suffered terribly at the hands of the IRA as well, and, every day, we hear more stories of how that happened.

I do not know whether there is any point in making this point because today was an opportunity lost, but I will make it anyway: Sinn Féin and the Provisional movement need to take the next available opportunity to say it straight that they believe Maíria Cahill's full account of her abuse and the abuse investigation's cover-up, and they need to say it about all the other victims in my city, in this city and in communities across the North. They need to come forward and tell the communities in Donegal, Louth and Monaghan who the abusers are and where they are. Are they, like some others have been, working for community organisations or working for youth clubs? Is that what is happening? Are there still people in our communities whom people know to be child abusers and rapists who have been let run free to work freely in our communities? People with knowledge of those issues need to come forward fully, openly and transparently and tell the truth because this issue is not going away.

Mr Wilson: First, many of us would wish that we were not discussing this here this evening. When Paula Bradley was asked to lead off on the motion for us, she was reluctant to do so. I think that she has probably done it with great personal difficulty, but she did it because she honestly believed that it was an issue that she, as a woman, should speak out on. Having spoken to Maíria Cahill, she also knew that it was something that the victim wanted the Assembly to discuss here today. Rather than a political point scoring exercise, this has been a difficult issue for the proposer of the motion and for the victim whom we are discussing here this evening. The only people who have turned this into a political point-scoring exercise or thrown up the political defence have been Sinn Féin.

From the very start of this day, Sinn Féin has planned to make sure that it turned this into a political event. From delaying the debate to late at night so that it missed the news, to lining up its women along the Front Benches to show that it is woman-friendly — they were not too friendly to the victim that we are talking about tonight — to the accusations that this is just a political point-scoring exercise. They have tried to turn it around because we know that they are embarrassed on this one. Jennifer McCann, despite all that she has said in debates in the House when talking about historical institutional abuse, said that nothing measures a society more than the way it looks after vulnerable people. Then she went on to condemn with a broad brush people right across this island and to say that a lot of people knew about historical abuse but simply did nothing about it. When she became the person whom someone confided in, what did she do about it? By the criteria that she has set down for effectively dealing with victims, she has failed. Someone came along and spoke to her, and she told us that she did not go to the police on the basis that "I was not asked to". If she was a trained counsellor, as she claims to have been, she would have known that, when something such as this was reported, she had a duty to. She failed in her duty as a public representative, as a counsellor and as the confidante of a vulnerable person. She then tries to hide behind the excuse "I was only doing my best". By her own criteria, she did not do that.

She says, of course, that there was no cover-up. However, as Alex Attwood pointed out, she had ample opportunity at a conference at which they were talking about victims in a war situation — as Sinn Féin would have described the past 30 years — to give real life examples of what happened here in Northern Ireland, but she chose not to do so. If that is not covering up, what is it? That is why the motion is particularly pertinent. If we are to have a credible inquiry that victims can have confidence in, they must have confidence in the people who lead it. They cannot have any confidence in someone who put the organisation that she belonged to in front of those who were hurt by it.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Wilson: Yes.

Mr Frew: Does the Member agree that it is not even the vile crime of rape and the subsequent cover-up, it is the actions of the republican movement in the interrogation and torture of victims and the actions of the so-called nutting squad?

Mr Wilson: That is why we must have the inquiry that we demand.

Let me finish with the words of Jennifer McCann:

or Sinn Féin — she did not add that —

On that criterion, Jennifer McCann is not fit to hold the position that she has at present, heading up the historical institutional abuse inquiry. She may have the confidence of the deputy First Minister, but she will not have the confidence of the Members of the House or of the people who will appear before the inquiry. For that reason, the motion is totally reasonable, and any action that comes from it is totally reasonable. Indeed, we would be failing in our duty as public representatives if we were not supporting the motion and demanding the action contained in it and in the amendment.

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

Mr Elliott: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish to apologise to the Education Minister, and to you and the other Deputy Speaker, for not being in the House today for my topical question on education. Things had run on slightly quicker than I had anticipated, but that is no excuse.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): The proposer of the topic will have 15 minutes to speak, and all other Members who wish to speak will have approximately six minutes.

Mr Easton: I should start the debate with a brief history of St Columbanus' College before going into the issues and problems that it is experiencing with its current building and how those must be addressed.

The foundation stones of the college were laid in August 1959. The college offered a wide curriculum when it was opened, and there was an emphasis on the teaching of vocational and technical skills. Many pupils left at the age of 15 to take up employment, though a small GCSE class remained to study for external examinations. The late 1960s and early 1970s saw a significant growth in enrolment, which required a major extension to the original building. In 2001, the college established a sixth form, allowing post-GCSE pupils to remain and study there. The number of students completing A levels at the college is still on the rise, and there has been approximately a fourfold increase over the last three years.

St Columbanus' College has around 600 pupils from all types of backgrounds, with 50% from the Roman Catholic community and 50% from the Protestant and other faiths. There is quite a range of faiths in the school. It also has 39 members of staff. The college is 54 years of age and, in my opinion, was not built to modern-day standards of health and safety requirements. Its structures suffer from concrete cancer. As anyone who knows about that will tell you, it cannot be cured. It is also present in the Ulster Hospital. The only way to fix the condition is to knock down the building and rebuild it, in my opinion.

The story of a new build for St Columbanus' College is not a new one. It is rather worrying and disturbing to hear that, in 2006, the college was only 16 weeks away from getting a new build agreed by the then direct rule Minister, Angela Smith. That was pulled, in 2010, by the then Education Minister, Caitríona Ruane. Since then, £900,000 has been spent on the planning fees for the build, only for it to be scrapped. That was a scandalous waste of money.

The school, as we know, has a lot of major problems. As well as having concrete cancer, it needs a new roof and a new heating system to replace the current one. The response to an Assembly question on the heating bill was that, in 2013-14, the college had to spend £32,000 and, in the year before that, it spent £36,000. So you can see the amount being spent on heating a building that is not fit for purpose.

Also, we see from an Assembly question on maintenance figures that £254,000 has been spent over the last five years, which is a sizeable amount, but those maintenance figures do not tell the whole story. Health and safety work in the school has cost a further £1·5 million, and a further £180,000 has been spent on minor works, adding up to a total spend over the last three years of a staggering nearly £1·8 million.

Minister, as we know, St Columbanus' College is putting a development proposal to you that will include a growth in intake from the current 90 to 115. Last year alone the school attracted 130 applications for year 8, yet it cannot even get a temporary variation, which is endangering its inclusive education model. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at that.

It is now, in my humble opinion, time to stop throwing money at the concrete cancer of the school, because it is just not fit for purpose. That will not fix it; it will just get worse; it is crumbling. It is time for a new build, and this evening I call on the Education Minister to fix the wrongs of the past and do what is right for the future of St Columbanus' College. It is time to build a new school, as it is falling apart. It is time to put the pupils, the parents and the teachers at the front. It is time to honour the pledge from the direct rule Minister in the past.

Mr Rogers: I start by thanking Alex for bringing the debate to the Floor today. I know that he has listed it with the Business Office quite a few times, so it is great to see it here today.

St Columbanus' College provides post-primary education for over 600 children and serves Bangor and the surrounding areas. The college was built in the 1960s and has proved very popular with Catholic students and with students of other faith traditions and none. Its enrolment has increased steadily and, year on year, it is oversubscribed. The school is highly respected in the community, with parents expressing high levels of satisfaction with the pastoral care and support that is offered, the good academic standards and, basically, simply how happy and content children are to go to the school. To say that St Columbanus' needs a new school is an understatement. That was acknowledged, as the Member who spoke previously said, 10 years ago, and a new build was announced on 16 March 2006. After being taken through planning, various delays and so on, the project was pulled in 2010.

In anticipation of the 2006 announcement and subsequent appraisals, earlier proposed improvements were, as you would expect, put on hold to ensure the best use of taxpayers' money. The school estate has been well managed by school management and the board of governors, but basic health and safety requirements have resulted, as the Member who spoke previously said, in over £1·75 million being spent in the last three years to keep the school safe for staff and pupils. One could say that that is throwing good money after bad, but we are where we are. Lessons must be learned as we future-proof the whole school estate. With the hundreds of thousands of pounds that are mounting up and the current number of announcements that are not shovel-ready, it is like trying to fill a leaking bucket, not to mention the added budgetary pressures that we are under as well.

While many in our society promote sector-based education, St Columbanus' is a faith-based school; its number-one aim is to instil Christian values in its students and prepare young people to deal with moral issues as they lead their lives. I am glad to see that in places like London there is now even a stronger desire for children to have a faith-based education. I have no doubt that that is very important to the parents of St Columbanus'.

While St Columbanus' is considered as a core provider of Catholic post-primary education in the north Down area and is central to its further development, it prides itself on being a school that attracts half its population from other faith traditions. It is a model of shared education that works at the highest level — a model that we must encourage. That is something that was recognised in the 'Belfast Telegraph' Making a Difference award for best school in 2012. It is a really good example of young people of all religious denominations fusing together to form a vibrant learning environment where the academic, pastoral and spiritual growth of the students is equally valued.

However St Columbanus' cannot develop this model of sharing because it is constrained. It is constrained by the Department — the very body that is supposed to be promoting shared education.

How is it constrained? I think that it is in two ways. There is no bigger constraint, as the previous Member to speak mentioned, than the building. The lack of a development proposal is also a major constraint — a development proposal that will take on board St Columbanus' unique shared atmosphere. This school is oversubscribed year after year. The Department has refused to give it a temporary variation on admission numbers, while it allows that to happen in neighbouring schools.

Let us do the sums. St Columbanus' can fill its 90 places from the five traditional feeder Catholic primary schools, therefore automatically excluding children from a non-Catholic background. However, that is not what the board of governors and school management want. They are determined that this cannot happen because the school would lose its unique nature and contradict the building of this shared future.

Minister, there are really two steps needed: a realistic development proposal that will increase the year 8 admissions from 90 to about 115 to keep the unique nature of the school and, of course, the new school.

Finally, you may wonder why somebody from south Down is here at 9.30 pm. There are probably three reasons. First, I declare an interest as an old friend of the principal, and that is important. Reason number two is that there is a relationship between the SDLP and St Columbanus'. Mr Larkin, who is now a priest, has written a great book on St Columbanus. Thirdly, and most importantly, this is a first-class school, a great example of shared education that really works and we need to get it up and running.

Mr Cree: I will resist the temptation to rehearse the arguments again about the history of the school, because that has been done adequately. I was wondering about Columbanus and I thought that Mr Rogers was going to cover that as well, but the only thing that I am left to say there is that Columbanus was probably Comgall's greatest student. There is a story that there were 2,000 monks in Bangor Abbey at that time and they grew a lot of their own produce. However, because of the size of the group, they had to buy some from a local farmer. It is recorded in the annals, quite amusingly really, that Comgall put a mild curse on the farmer because they could not agree on the price. I see Gordon Dunne laughing; he knows about this one. Ironically, the farmer's name was Cree in old Irish, whatever that is.

However, to get back to the subject: St Columbanus' College in Bangor has demonstrated over a long time that it is viable and sustainable. Again, as has been touched on, it is a very good example of a shared campus and a cross-community school, but it is old and does not meet modern educational needs. That was recognised by the South Eastern Education and Library Board in its area plan for 2013-18. The board also supported CCMS in identifying the school as an urgent priority for major capital investment in order to support the school's continued development.

I am pleased to see the Minister here this evening. Minister, you will remember that you are on record as stating that St Columbanus' deserves a new school; but when will it get it? This matter has been the subject of many questions over the years and it is time that the issue was decided. This morning, in the House, Minister, you told us that you are a man who makes decisions. That warmed my heart because that sort of suited this evening's debate. When, therefore, may we expect a positive decision from you to proceed with plans for a new school build for St Columbanus'?

I know that there were plans for Mr Perry, the headmaster, and some of the governors to come here and perhaps meet the Minister this evening. I do not know whether that happened. If they did, and it looks like they did, hopefully, they will have received good news from you. I look forward with anticipation to your response.

Dr Farry: I, too, welcome the debate this evening. I will spare the House from any more anecdotes except to say that, when Mr Rogers said that he was familiar with St Columbanus, I was for one minute worried that he would say that he knew him personally rather than express familiarity with the school.

Beyond stressing the history of the school in Bangor, it is also worth stressing how central and valued it is to the community as a whole. There is strong support for the school from all shades of opinion in the town and much further afield. It is also marked out by its status as an all-abilities school and has many successes in that regard including the quality of education provided and the strength of its pastoral care. You will hear that through the testimonials of quite a lot of the students who have passed through the school; for example, the outgoing Mayor of North Down, Andrew Muir, and a number of people who work in my Department.

The school is also well-characterised by its mixed enrolment. While it is unambiguously part of the Catholic maintained sector, it has historically stood out for its mixed and shared enrolment and the very inclusive approach that it takes to ensure that all students are welcome and cherished as part of a single school family.

The Minister and other Members may associate me as being a strong advocate of the integrated sector in Northern Ireland, which, indeed, I am, but it is worth stressing that I regard integrated schools as one part of a spectrum of opportunities for shared education, all of which have value. St Columbanus' is definitely on that spectrum as a school that practises a form of shared education, which is a somewhat different concept to that of integrated education. It is worth recognising that different sectors are set to continue to operate in Northern Ireland for the foreseeable future, and, in that respect, it is important that we seek to invest in fresh buildings for existing and successful schools, particularly when they meet the objectives that have been set by the Department.

The college is also worth referencing in the wider context of schools in north Down. The Minister will be well aware that virtually all of the primary schools and, I think, every single post-primary school is either oversubscribed or full. We also have one of the strongest area-learning communities locally, so there can be strong confidence in the sustainability of each of the schools, including St Columbanus', as well as in the north Down school system as a whole.

Other Members have discussed the history of the potential redevelopment of St Columbanus' and the history of announcements, approvals and disappointments. The school was, at one stage, very close to proceeding with a new build — it was only a matter of weeks away — only to have those hopes dashed. There has also been £1 million spent on planning, which will be dead money if it is not fully utilised. The numbers in the school are more than sustainable. The sad fact is that we are talking about figures of around 450 in years 8 to 12, but that is artificially capped. The fact that the school can support over 600 students quite comfortably indicates that meeting the 500 threshold for years 8 to 12 would not cause any difficulty whatsoever. There is no prospect of a new build at St Columbanus' undermining any other post-primary school within quite a large catchment area.

In some respects, the history of St Columbanus' mirrors the situation at Priory Integrated College, about which an announcement was made and subsequently withdrawn a number of years ago. It also had artificial restrictions placed on it that caused difficulties in its ticking boxes when we all know that it was sustainable. I note that the Minister said earlier that he believed that Priory was now fully sustainable, but that there was now no money in the kitty for its capital build. It is a pity that we missed that opportunity several years ago.

Hopefully, we can return to Priory in the very near future. There is no doubt that Gordon Dunne, in particular, as a Holywood-based MLA, will be keen to see that happen.

The same goes for St Columbanus' College. It has proven that it meets every single objective of the Department, including being a key partner in shared education. It meets all the tests of sustainability. There is ample space for a rebuild. It will be easy to do and for that to be accommodated. It passes all the tests. All that we need is the formal go-ahead and money for redevelopment.

Mr Weir: I welcome, as others have, first of all, the Adjournment debate tonight. I obviously welcome the Education Minister. Indeed, such is the fame and celebrity of St Columbanus' College that we have even drawn in a supporter from South Down. He is very welcome as well.

Mention was made of the centrality of the figure of Columbanus to Bangor. Indeed, as Mr Cree will testify from our old school, Bangor Grammar School, Columbanus is even mentioned in the first line of the school song. That level of centrality that the saint has is very much reflected in the school. It is something that is very much at the heart of the community.

It has been mentioned that, while the school building and level of repairs could at times be mistaken to almost date from the time of Columbanus, it dates back to 1959; a very auspicious year in which my colleague Gordon Dunne was born. He may not have received much renovation work, but St Columbanus' College is long past its sell-by date with regard to the need for additional renovation work and, indeed, a new build.

The level of expansion of the numbers at St Columbanus' College has been mentioned. The growth in the school over the years is a very strong reflection of the great pastoral and, indeed, academic work that is done by the staff there, which has an excellent reputation, as well as it celebrating an ethos that is both Christian-based and very welcoming to all who are there. Often, particularly when we deal with various items of education legislation, we spend a reasonable amount of time in this House debating differences and distinctions between classifications of integrated or shared education. While St Columbanus' College is ultimately under the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS), it is the prime example — a flagship leader for Northern Ireland — of a school that is truly shared and integrated. The fact has been mentioned that, without having that formal status, it draws 50% of its pupils from a Roman Catholic background and 50% from a Protestant or indeed other tradition. Such is the school's success that, in its broad catchment area, it draws pupils not simply from the locality around Bangor but many from Holywood and, indeed, Newtownards and the surrounding areas.

Whatever excellent contribution is made by staff, pupils and parents, there is a massive restriction on the school, as Mr Rogers indicated, on two grounds. We have a situation across North Down, perhaps uniquely in Northern Ireland, in which there is a tightness of numbers in both the primary and secondary sectors, which means that the vast bulk of schools are either oversubscribed or at least at full capacity. I think that all of us who are representatives in North Down will see that annually when we are quite often confronted by parents who have been unable to get their children into any one of the schools of their choice locally. Therefore, there is a need for new provision to allow an expansion of numbers.

The sustainability of enrolment has been mentioned. Again, there are those of us who have seen locally the pressures on primary-school numbers, particularly in the last two to three years. North Down as a whole and Bangor in particular have been attracting additional new and younger families, the end result of which is clear: the demographics are such that, if you project ahead by four or five years, you will see that there will probably be an admissions crisis in the secondary sector. Therefore, there should be a bit of pre-planning at this stage. An expansion of numbers at St Columbanus' College is vital.

It is also the case, as has been indicated, that the fabric of the school, like any 55-year-old — I look to my left here at this particular point — is bound to crumble after 55 years. As was highlighted by my colleague Alex Easton, the situation at St Columbanus' College is that, due to concrete cancer, more and more money has got to be poured into it simply to sustain it from a health and safety point of view.

One of the things that government was always supposed to embrace was the idea of invest to save; making capital investment on the basis of actions that would lead to a reduction in the costs on the resource base. This is a prime example. A new build would provide that from the educational point of view and from the point of view of the needs of the school. That is a positive way forward.

Mention was made of the Holywood schools' project and Bangor Central, which are equally deserving of new builds. I hope that, in the spirit of Mr Cree's contribution, our decisive listening Minister will today be able to provide, on the basis of a little bit of flattery from other Members and, all joking aside, based on the strength of the argument for St Columbanus', a true investment in a secondary school that is the epitome of sharing, integration and a good ethos. I hope that he shows that confidence in it by today indicating progression.

Mention was made of one of the original proposals dating from 2006. It was discussed that long ago at the South Eastern Education and Library Board in a pre-commissioner stage. I think that I was on the South Eastern Board when that was discussed. That gives an indication of just how long ago that was. For a lot of the parents and staff, it is long overdue. Therefore, I urge the Minister to respond sympathetically to the debate today and give light at the end of the tunnel for St Columbanus'.

Mr Dunne: I, too, welcome this debate, which was brought forward by my colleague Alex Easton. We also extend our thanks to the Minister for his attendance today. We look forward to his announcement later.

The school, which has over 600 pupils, no doubt covers a range of backgrounds in the Bangor area and beyond. I know that a number of young people travel from Holywood and beyond to the school. It has progressed extensively in recent years. Indeed, it has outgrown its existing buildings. There is no doubt that a replacement is needed. I am aware of the very positive relationships between the school and other local schools, and of the work it does with those schools in the neighbouring area. There is a sharing of facilities and skills in the Bangor area. We also recognise the high attainment levels. As a former mayor, I am very much aware of the many excellent speech days that I attended in the school.

We need to see further investment in our schools in north Down. It is right that we acknowledge the significant investment that there has been in the Bangor area in the last 20 years. However, there is still need for improvement and investment in other school estates, such as St Columbanus' College. It is not fit for purpose, and it is long overdue a new build.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the ongoing campaign for the Holywood schools. The Minister has certainly shown interest in that, and we acknowledge that. We look forward to his commitment to starting work in Holywood in the not-too-distant future.

I certainly endorse all that has been said in relation to St Columbanus'. It is important that we lobby for the provision of such a school. I am proud to support the proposal this evening.

Mr Agnew: At the outset, I declare an interest as a director of the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE). However, as always in the Chamber, I speak as a representative of the Green Party in Northern Ireland.

My colleagues from North Down and South Down have outlined well the reasons why St Columbanus' needs a new school build. It is a successful school, and it is a growing school in terms of demand. We heard that, back in 2006, St Columbanus' College was sufficiently near the top of the list for new school builds that it was given a commitment that it would receive the finance to progress a new school build.

I understand why, in 2010, due to cutbacks, a number of planned school builds were not progressed. However, what we have seen since then bears some scrutiny. There have been three funding rounds for capital build programmes since the 2010 announcement, when the money was allocated to those schools that could move the quickest with their new builds. In 2012, 2013 and 2014, there have been funding announcements, but the criteria each time have changed.

The Minister knows that I have asked a number of questions about the criteria, and I have done my own research where I have not fully got the answers that I have been looking for. We have seen a picture of shifting sands. Indeed, in answer to one of my questions, the Minister said that the criteria have evolved based on learning from past experience. That is acceptable, but he has also said that the criteria have changed to meet his priorities. That is where I find, having spoken to principals, that schools get concerned and ask why they have not met the criteria.

Schools plan for the future, and they know the criteria. We will all lobby for schools in our constituencies: every Member will do that, and I am happy to lobby on behalf of St Columbanus' College for the reasons that have been outlined. It needs a new build, because the building that it has is old and needs replaced.

What principals, boards of governors, parents and pupils need is some certainty. I ask the Minister whether the criteria set out in his most recent funding announcement will be the criteria used in the next funding announcement, or will they be changed again? Also, what consultation has taken place when he has changed the criteria, and what evidence base has he used to justify those changes? We need those answers, as politicians, to hold the Minister to account for his decision-making, to ensure that decisions taken are fair and to ensure that schools are selected for funding on the basis of objective criteria, rather than criteria that change to suit the Minister's priority areas in terms of which schools he would like to see progressed.

I welcome that the Minister met representatives of St Columbanus' College today. Having spoken to them earlier this evening, I know that they appreciated his time. They believe they had the opportunity to put their case, and they are hopeful — perhaps that is the best way to put it — of a future announcement. They stressed to me that time on these issues is key, and the Minister will be well aware that many parents will be making decisions on where to send their children to school next year. So, whilst we want the right decision, it is important to get it within the correct timeline.

I look forward to the Minister's response. He did not give an answer to the school today, so I doubt he will give an answer to us today, but I urge him, in his next capital funding announcement, to recognise the need of St Columbanus' College, reinstate its place at the head of the queue and give it the funding it so desperately needs.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Education): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the capital project for St Columbanus' College, Bangor. I congratulate Mr Easton on securing the debate, although I have to say that my heart sank slightly, given the late hour, when he started off in 1959 and proceeded to work forward. It sank further when Mr Cree went back to St Columbanus, but I found his story very interesting, and that was a bit of knowledge that I did not have. I was delighted that Mr Weir did not sing the school song.

I will move to the seriousness of tonight's debate. As Members said, this evening, I met the principal and representatives from the board of governors of St Columbanus' College, Bangor. That provided me with the opportunity to listen to their plans for the school and their views on the development proposal, which was published on 2 October and seeks additional places at the school from September 2015. I was very encouraged by what they had to say and by the clear commitment of the school to secure the very best for their children and, indeed, the community. However, Members will appreciate — I am sure that Mr Agnew will appreciate — that I am not in a position to comment on any detail associated with the development proposal, as the two-month objection period does not end until 2 December. I want to hear the views of all interested parties, including the young people, their parents and their elected representatives, so that I can shape the education provision to meet their needs. Therefore, I encourage those with an interest in the development proposal to make their views known to my Department over the next few weeks. I reassure Members that the Hansard report of the debate will form part of that evidence. At the end of the objection period, my officials will present me with a submission on the proposal. At that stage, I will make my decision, taking account of all pertinent issues associated with the proposal, including those expressed during this Adjournment debate and at my meeting with the school this evening.

I turn now to the capital build. My Department's strategy for capital investment into the foreseeable future remains focused on supporting the development and delivery of a network of viable and sustainable schools, set firmly in the context of 'Schools for the Future: A Policy for Sustainable Schools', and shaped by the outworking of area plans. My priority and focus remain on the needs and interests of children and young people, and I remain committed to embedding the area-planning process, with the aim of ensuring a network of strong, vibrant schools.

As Members said, and as the school raised with me today — I also visited the school in, I think, February 2012 — the school was very close to the point at which it was ready to commence building programmes. Other schools have told me that, in times gone by, they were on a list for new builds. I have now made three announcements on capital projects, and I have taken the view that I will announce only capital builds that are at a stage that will move forward in the foreseeable future and are area-plan proofed. Until recently, the north Down area, in relation to the maintained sector, was not area-plan proofed. The area-planning process is now engaged, a development proposal has been published and, when a decision is made on the proposal, I, as Minister, will have a better understanding of the sustainability of the school or schools serving the maintained sector in that area. Therefore, I will be able to make decisions on capital builds on a firmer basis than they were made previously.

Members will understand that the development proposal process currently in play is a vital part of this capital build jigsaw, and that will outwork itself. I have said to the school that I will endeavour to make a decision as quickly as possible. However, the consultation does not close until 2 December. I wish to be in a position to have a decision with them before mid-January, when the school has its open evenings, so that it can give information to parents. I will endeavour to do that. It is, therefore, as I said, vital that, for all the capital build announcements in the future, once the development proposal process is complete, and whichever way the decision goes, the area has been area-plan proofed. The sectors will know, and I will know as Minister, what the sustainability of each school in the area is. I will know what size of school I am required to build for St Columbanus'. The debate has never been whether St Columbanus' needs a new build; it is beyond doubt or question that it does. The question that has to be answered by area planning is this: what size of school is required?

In response to Mr Agnew's comments about whether the criteria and the rules will change, I will say that I have been developing an open and transparent system for the announcement of new schools and how those new schools were chosen. Previous to that, I, as Minister, could have picked them simply by throwing a dart at a board. I have decided to publish the methodology and the weighting mechanisms that I use in selecting schools to give openness and transparency. We have been developing it over a number of stages. I do not see any significant changes being made to that process in the future.

Mr Agnew: I thank the Minister for giving way. I just want to say that I appreciate that, in response to a question for oral answer, he made a commitment to furnish me with scores etc in relation to the schools chosen for new school build programmes. I thank him for doing that and for his transparency in that regard.

Mr O'Dowd: I am attempting to reassure all sectors that they are being treated fairly and that there is openness and transparency in this matter. It was raised with me again today during Question Time in relation to the Holywood schools. I have confirmed that Priory is a sustainable school. That answers part of that area-planning equation too and allows me to make decisions on capital build.

Now comes the crux of the matter: money. Members will be aware that we face a very difficult budgetary period. I have committed to engaging with the Finance Minister and other Executive Ministers around my budget. I want to engage with them on resource certainly but also on capital for education. I believe that with limited resources, as we had in previous years, we have made a significant input to improving the schools estate through minor works and major capital investments. I believe that investment in new schools is beneficial not only to the immediate school but to the local community, education and to the economy through construction jobs and investment.

I will be engaging with the Finance Minister and with other Executive Ministers, particularly around the Department of Education's capital budget. Hopefully, that will result in some success for me and an increase in that budget. If I get an increased capital budget, it will allow me to build more schools in future. I assure Members that, once the development proposal issue has been resolved, North Down will be area-plan proofed in this matter, which gives a great advantage to St Columbanus as regards my making any decisions about new school builds.