Northern Ireland Assembly, 20 October 2009

308 contributions from 63 members. The official report.

Ministerial Statement

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I have received notice from the Minister for Employment and Learning that he wishes to make a statement regarding programme-led apprenticeships.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

During a debate on 22 June, I announced that I would introduce a new programme-led apprentice­ship aimed at school leavers as a further intervention measure in light of the recession. That announcement was prompted by the declining jobs market and the strong indications that school leavers would be exceptionally hard hit. The unemployment trends over the summer have confirmed those fears. Failure to address the issue would have presented further problems in subsequent years, such as the assignment of many young people to the not in education, employment or training category and gaps in the skills pool when the recession ends and growth begins.

In the lead-up to that announcement, and since then, I was aware that there has been considerable interest by Members and some industry sectors about how programme-led apprenticeships would impact on employers and the traditional and preferred employer-led apprenticeship model. In making this statement, I want to say up front that this intervention was not a knee-jerk reaction, but a measured response that added to earlier interventions that I had put in place. The new temporary provision secures apprenticeship training.

ApprenticeshipsNI, the employer-led provision, must always be the preferred option. It is our best training model, but it requires the continued support of employers. In the past year, we have seen a number of employers that have, historically, run apprenticeship programmes — such as Northern Ireland Electricity, Bombardier, Wrightbus and companies in the electrical sector — postponing their annual intake or reducing it significantly. That is why I had to take action to introduce an alternative measure to the employer-led route.

A programme-led apprenticeship does not mean a lesser or second-tier qualification; it offers quality training and the same level of qualification as the employer-led route.

Programme-led apprentices will spend more time with the training organisation, and a strong emphasis will be placed on skills training in a simulated work environment. Time spent in the real work environment will be in the form of a one day a week work placement, with an opportunity for a block placement of six to eight weeks during the summer.

Training will follow the same apprenticeship framework, and it will allow for a seamless progression to the employer-led route should the young person secure employment at any time during their training. Similarly, if an employed apprentice who is under 18 is made redundant, they can join the programme-led route to continue their training.

The new provision will involve an additional cost to the Department of approximately £6·3 million. To have used that money for a wage-subsidy scheme that was to be paid directly to employers would have drawn in issues such as European Union regulations on state aid, and it could have displaced existing higher-paid jobs. Therefore, the funding is targeted at the individual, not the employer.

In a pre-prepared statement that I gave to the House, I included enrolment figures for the scheme up to 6 October 2009. I now have updated figures that show that in the period from the scheme’s inception on 7 September 2009 to 19 October 2009, a total of 2,763 trainees enrolled. Those figures demonstrate clearly both the scale of the demand for the training and the potential problems that could have arisen had I not acted. The young people involved have voted with their feet in very large numbers.

Had I not introduced the programme now, provision would still have been made under the existing Training for Success pre-apprenticeship scheme. However, some 2,000 trainees from last year would have been due to leave that scheme with limited job prospects. Programme-led apprenticeships will extend those apprentices’ training for a further year, allowing them to complete a full level 2 apprenticeship framework.

In addition to the 2,763 programme-led apprentices who have enrolled since 7 September 2009, most of the pre-apprenticeship intakes from last year have now signed up to complete their second year of training under the programme-led scheme. That means that over 4,700 apprentices are now participating in the scheme.

Some of the arguments that have been made against the initiative are that we are overtraining apprentices, that there will be too many young people trained with too few jobs for them to move into and that too many young people will not be trained to the correct level for some sectors. However, what would the alternative have been? Is it not better to have a pool of young people who are equally equipped to compete for the jobs when they come, rather than to have unskilled young people with few or no qualifications or experience?

Those young people will also be well on track to attain a higher skill level, as required by their employer, when they begin work. The employer-led programme will assist with that training.

I accept that in the lead-up to announcing the programme-led apprenticeship scheme, discussions with the industry sectors could have been more complete. However, I also recognise that the scheme could never meet all the demands of all the sectors. In responding to social issues such as this, there will always be tension. In this case, that tension was between the needs of the young school leavers and the business needs of the employers. However, the House should be assured that departmental officials will continue to work with employers and their representatives. Hopefully, Members will appreciate that the new provision meets social and economic needs, as it goes a long way to meet the requirements of employers while protecting the Northern Ireland skills base for when we emerge from the recession.

I am content that the programme-led apprenticeship scheme will provide opportunities for young people to follow their chosen careers, to acquire relevant qualifications and to be exposed to the world of work. It will produce young people who will be experienced, qualified and ready to meet the needs of employers when the eventual upturn in the economy arises.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. I had a meeting with the Minister just over two weeks ago, at which we discussed some of the issues and concerns that had been brought to my attention. I suggested to the Minister that if he made a statement to the Assembly, that would allow other Members to ask questions, as there is some confusion out there, and nobody is better placed to answer those questions than the Minister.

The Minister said that he is responding to social issues and the economic downturn, and we have all had to respond to the recession in different ways. Does he envisage any scenario in which programme-led apprenticeships will last beyond the current economic downturn? I understand that the programme-led apprenticeship scheme is at capacity, and the Minister has given amended figures in his statement. However, when does he believe that the numbers will level off, or have they already levelled off? Is there a danger that the scheme will need to be expanded because of the possibility of more apprentice redundancies?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The scheme is a response to the current economic downturn. We have undertaken to keep it under review, and it will be reviewed at least annually. I believe that the numbers are levelling off. From 6 to 19 October, approximately 100 extra apprentices signed up for the programme-led apprenticeship. We are pretty well reaching the stage at which it is too late for people to enrol, because if they enrol now, they will have missed a substantial amount of the programme. Therefore, the numbers are levelling off. However, we had always estimated that there would be provision for between 2,500 and 3,000 places. The figure of approximately £6·3 million for the cost of the scheme was based on having around 3,000 apprentices in post by this stage.

I can confirm to the Chairperson that we said that we would keep the situation under continuous review, because it is a response to a particular set of circumstances. I know that the Committee has argued consistently — as have others — that the best way forward is to go down the employer-led route, and I agree. However, the employer-led route means that an apprentice must have a contract of employment and, in effect, be an employee. We all know that some of our major companies either have failed to recruit apprentices this year or have drastically reduced their numbers. Therefore, what were we to do with the young people? We have more than 4,700 young people in a good programme. If we had done nothing, those 4,700 young people would be out there somewhere. Although the situation is not ideal or perfect, we are in a far better scenario than had we sat back and done nothing.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

I welcome the Minister’s statement and his reassurance that programme-led apprenticeships offer the same quality of training and the same qualifications as employer-led apprenticeships. There was some concern that that was not the case, so I welcome his reassurance.

Will the Minister outline any other options that he considered in response to the rise in apprentice redundancies before he went down the programme-led apprenticeships route? Now that there has been time to consult on the programme-led apprenticeship scheme, will the Minister inform the House whether those who were sceptical about the scheme at the time have now bought into it?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The answer to the Member’s last question is that people’s scepticism has, to some extent, been assuaged. Some organisations felt that the scheme would lead to a significant reduction in standards. There is a difference between the two schemes. The employer-led scheme means that an apprentice would spend far more time on a practical job with an employer.

The programme-led scheme, on the other hand, involves the provision of a simulated working environment, which could be in a college or with another training provider. There is no doubt that the better of the two options is for an apprentice to be with an employer in the actual work environment. The programme-led scheme is the next best possible scenario to that.

Let me be clear: the qualifications that the apprentices will be seeking are fully accredited. An apprentice will gain a qualification that is fully accredited and fully recognised; however, the amount of time spent on placement with an employer will be substantially less. That is the essential difference between the two schemes. I would much prefer the scheme to be with an employer, but in circumstances where employers are not taking on apprentices, or are drastically reducing the number of apprentices that they are taking on, what alternatives are open? That is the dilemma that we faced earlier in the year.

The Member asked what other options were considered. We were lobbied, and the suggestion was made that the Department should give a subsidy to employers to maintain or take on apprentices. However, once state money is given to companies, it opens up a Pandora’s box of European interventions. For example, if we are subsidising someone’s wages, questions will be asked about whether it is state aid. It would open us up to all sorts of issues, and, in fact, it is quite possible that those subsidies would be challenged by the European Commission. Quite frankly, in some cases, we would have a hard job standing up to the criticism. We took the view that we should concentrate our resources on the individual, not on the company, and on the employee, not the employer. By doing that we avoid all the European issues that could trip us up.

There have also been other interventions, including the establishment of Skillsafe, which is designed to help an existing apprentice who, for instance, may be put on short time by an employer. Through that scheme, the Department will take up the slack for one or two days by paying that apprentice at least the minimum wage and providing free training during the time that they are working short time. There has not been a large take-up of that scheme, but those who are availing themselves of it find it helpful. We considered a series of interventions and felt that, on balance, the programme-led scheme offered the best option, without our having to tangle with the European Commission and get into all sorts of arguments there.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I call Rev Dr Bob Coulter, and in doing so I add my congratulations on his important milestone, which takes him a little bit outside the range of the apprenticeship scheme.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Having been an apprentice at one stage, very long ago, I appreciate your kind words today.

I welcome the Minister’s statement, and congratulate him on the time and energy that he has given to solving the problem. Will the curriculum for the programme-led apprenticeship scheme be designed and governed by the industry, and not by remote academics?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I do not know whether the Member is speaking in his capacity as a remote academic. I repeat the point: some industry representative bodies have expressed concern to the Department, the Committee and other Members that somehow, by going in this direction, we would be diminishing apprenticeships in some way. However, when one examines what those organisations have been saying, we see that they are dramatically reducing the number of apprentices that they were going to take on. We have a dilemma. I want employers to take the lead in providing apprenticeships — we all want that — but the employers simply were not providing the places.

The unemployment rates for young people in the UK as a whole are far higher than the national average. In other words, a huge slice of unemployment is concentrated in the younger age group — under the age of 24 — and Northern Ireland is no different. Therefore, the problem had to be resolved by providing people in that age group with work. In the UK, growing numbers of people are classified as “NEETs” — young people not in education, employment or training — although the problem is not quite as bad in Northern Ireland as it is in other regions.

Our measure has taken 4,700 of the young people who might not otherwise have had anything and put them in a simulated work environment in which they can work towards obtaining an accredited qualification. No matter how one looks at it, that is a far better scenario than those people being unable to get a job in the current circumstances.

I accept the argument that, to some extent, we are shielding them from the labour market for at least a year. As I said, people in the pre-apprenticeship programme have now moved on to the programme-led scheme, so many young people are now part of that scheme. An upturn will be needed after a year so that those in the pre-apprenticeship scheme who have moved on to the employer-led scheme can seek their qualification at the end of the current year. It is my hope that, by that stage, the economic recovery will have started.

We will review the scheme, and I assure the Member that we are doing everything that we can to ensure that a high-quality training regime is in place. All schemes will be subject to inspection by the Education and Training Inspectorate. There will be no half measures; the regime that is in place to produce quality will remain exactly as it should, subject to full inspection by the inspectorate.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for coming to the House with such a detailed report, and I hope that programme-led apprenticeships are a success. I understand that the training organisations that are part of the Training for Success scheme are saying that placement levels are as low as 25%. Can the Minister, therefore, explain how he hopes to engage with and encourage employers that are not normally associated with apprenticeship schemes, such as employers in the public sector and in the community and voluntary sector? What is the real incentive for employers to become involved?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Department continuously engages with employers. During our contact with employers earlier this year, it became obvious that many of them were going to stop taking on apprentices completely, or at least drastically reduce their numbers. Some excellent apprenticeship schemes are run by some of the best employers in Northern Ireland. The Department received that news some months ago, and we were very concerned.

The Member asked whether the public sector could be encouraged to be associated with apprenticeship schemes. The public sector employs a huge slice of the workforce, and, therefore, it is appropriate that it starts to pull its weight by providing apprenticeships. I have written to ministerial colleagues, and we are at an advanced stage of negotiation with other Departments. We are getting a positive response, not only from the Departments but from non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) and other agencies.

I believe that, because of the positive response that we have been receiving from Departments, apprenticeships in the public sector will be provided as soon as possible. That means, I hope, that a new avenue will open up to people. The Department for Employment and Learning is making arrangements to try to put such arrangements in place.

An undertaking was made to link the issuing of public contracts and the employment of apprentices by the successful contractor. That has happened only to a minimal extent, and Pat Ramsey’s Foyle constituency is the only place where it has occurred. I understand that eight apprentices were taken on as part of a public contract there. The scheme has not rolled out to the extent to which I believe it should have done, however. Therefore, there are questions to be asked.

I assure the Member that I believe that employers will respond, provided people receive qualifications under the scheme. Employers will not have to revisit the issue because much of the work will be done for them. They will be able to take on people who already have skills and qualifications, which would be easier than training someone from scratch.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I strongly welcome his intervention in rolling out programme-led apprenticeships. Like other MLAs, I receive representations and letters from various industries. They have concerns about the future of modern apprenticeships.

We must be realistic. I agree with the Minister that, although we can discuss the pros and cons of the two different programmes, at the end of the day, what will we do with youngsters who leave school? It is much better to give them focus. That could be attending college and, perhaps, one placement day each week. It is much better to give young people that focus so that they can be categorised as active. Going to college and working towards qualifications will focus those young people on getting out of bed in the morning and looking forward to better prospects when the downturn is over.

Pat Ramsey asked the Minister about exploration with the public sector. I am pleased to hear that there has been a good response from that sector. What about the community and voluntary sector, which is a big employer? Has the Minister spoken to the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA), for example, on exploring possibilities?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I am pleased that the Member got to her question in the end. She is correct: we must be realistic. I believe that we have been realistic.

The Member may recall that, a few weeks ago, the Department announced a programme that, over two years, will create 4,000 job opportunities in the voluntary and community sector, whereby people who have been unemployed for at least 30 months would be employed by that sector for six months. We will give the voluntary and community sector the opportunity to take on 1,000 people for six months and to roll that out over two years.

The sector has responded positively. The programme is being taken up across the board. That means that people who have been unemployed for at least 30 months will have the opportunity to apply for a real job with a proper employment contract. When people finish the six-month period, it will be included on their curriculum vitae when they begin to search for a job. The first question that people are asked by potential employers is when they last worked. People will now be able to answer that question.

The voluntary and community sector is pulling its weight, but we can ask it only to do so much. The Member will be aware that the sector faces huge funding issues. If the scheme works, it offers significant opportunities to people who have been unemployed long term. However, we also want to reach people at the other end of the scale when they start off their working lives.

As far as the Department is concerned, Northern Ireland’s important voluntary and community sector, which is still a significant contributor to the economy — it accounts for around 5% of economic activity — is pulling its weight. Given the financial constraints in the sector, there is little more that we can ask it to do at present.

We will look closely at whether the scheme works. If it does, we will take great satisfaction from that; however, if it is not working, we will have to revisit it and come back with some other suggestions.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the Minister’s statement. I appreciate his work and that of his Department in what is a very difficult area in the economy at the minute.

I welcome the idea of progression on the employer-led route and the clarification that those who have been made redundant are also able to avail of the programme-led route. There is a small group of people who have been in apprenticeships and, although they have not been made redundant, have continued to work as labourers, particularly in the building industry. If, at this stage, they wish to drop back into the apprenticeship scheme, is that an option?

The Minister gave us some very encouraging figures; is it possible to have those figures broken down by constituency?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I will reflect on the latter question and see what information can be provided. Normally, we are able to provide figures based on where people reside, but we are unable to provide figures on how many people are working in a constituency. We can give the Member figures based on people’s addresses; if the Member wishes to write to me, I will be happy to provide him with those. We cannot provide details of whether an individual is employed in, for example, the Member’s constituency, East Antrim; however, we can tell him how many people on the programme-led apprenticeship have addresses in his constituency. That is as close as we can get. I will endeavour to provide the Member with those figures.

The construction industry has provided one of our biggest challenges. There are slightly more than 1,600 apprentices in construction this year, and, as I understand it, that is around half the number that there would have been a year ago. That is a major concern. The Member will know that we have made provision for apprentices who are put on short time. A scheme is in place, Skillsafe, which can help apprentices to make up the short time by giving them at least a minimum-wage payment.

The construction industry has particular needs. The Member will recall that I made a statement last week on the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) and the changes that we are making to it. The sector is in a fairly volatile situation, and contractors are struggling to get enough work to keep them going. Therefore, it is very hard to get consistency of apprenticeships among employers. We are working as best we can with the companies, and we have taken steps to try to ease the burden on them by taking a lot of the smaller companies out of the levy. However, the number of apprenticeships has dropped by roughly half, and that is a substantial drop.

It would be foolish of me to say that there was going to be any early change to that situation. The construction industry is in a very difficult position, and it is one of the areas that we are keeping under review. However, if we look at our colleges, we can see that there has been substantial investment in the estate to provide high-quality environments in which people can train in construction skills. There is excellent provision pretty much everywhere. However, it would be misleading of me to tell the Member that I foresee any early improvement to the situation in that sector.

Paul Butler (Sinn Féin, Lagan Valley)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. He raised the issue of apprentices getting simulated work experience rather than real work experience.

The Minister mentioned the public sector. I am looking at the reply that I received from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister about capital projects over the next two years. In that period, 232 major capital construction projects will be put out for advertisement, worth somewhere in the region of £2 billion. There will also be an additional £279 million for smaller works.

The Minister touched on that, but he did not get into the detail. I appreciate that there is criticism from employers about simulated work experience for apprentices. However, if the Executive are rolling out a programme of capital projects over the next two years, it is up to the Minister to devise proposals so that we can tap into those projects.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Does the Member have a question?

Paul Butler (Sinn Féin, Lagan Valley)

Does the Minister accept that we need to look at the public sector, given that the Executive are rolling out such programmes?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Member makes a reasonable point. I touched on the issue in answer to Mr Ramsey. However, given that it has to be dealt with at the contract stage, it might be more fruitful for me to write to the Minister of Finance and Personnel, who is responsible for the procurement directorate. Any conditions that one applies have to be implemented at the contract stage; in other words, they must be contained in the contract.

If I am interpreting the Member correctly, he is saying that that level of public spending is an opportunity to ensure that apprentices are engaged at the stage when the contracts are let. That would have to be done by DFP through the Central Procurement Directorate. I will write to the Minister of Finance to inform him of the Member’s views and ask him what steps CPD is taking to ensure that apprentices are engaged at the contract stage.

As I said, the roll-out has been very sporadic and has only had a marginal impact, but the Member has a fair point: there is potential to do better.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I also congratulate the Minister and his Department on the work that they are doing with young apprentices. What is being done for those who are not so young and have lost their jobs? Is anything being done to reskill them?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

As the Member knows, we removed the age limit for apprentices last year. Almost 40% of apprentices are now aged over 24, which would not have been possible until last year.

As I said to Anna Lo, we have introduced a scheme with the voluntary and community sector in which people who have been unemployed for 30 months or longer, many of whom tend to be in the older age spectrum, will be offered a six-month contract of employment. Those jobs will be paid and will have a proper contract. The participants will be able to put the jobs they do on their CVs. During the six months, they will get help with their CVs and receive extra training for interviews. Therefore, in addition to a job, the participants will have access to that form of training and, depending on their employer, other forms of training. That scheme deals with the long-term unemployed who, by definition, tend to be further up the age spectrum. All our programmes aim to get people back to work. The Member will know that there has been, in many cases, more than an 80% increase in the past year in the number of unemployed people registering in each jobcentre. The rate varies substantially from one jobcentre to another, but that is the overall increase.

We offer opportunities to those individuals. For instance, we offer the Pathways to Work programme to people who have become ill or are on incapacity benefit. That programme allows those people to be interviewed consistently up to six times. We offer them all sorts of opportunities, even the chance to start a business. We provide assistance for the first 26 weeks, and, if the business does not work out, the people who are involved suffer no loss and their benefits are maintained. Therefore, a range of programmes helps people right across the age spectrum. We must remember that we want to value and help people from when they leave school until the end of their working life. If we follow the example of my good colleague Rev Coulter, the Member will ask me the same question in 20 years. I look forward to that.

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Like other Members, I thank the Minister for his detailed statement. I will put my question into context: the statement mentions the programme-led apprenticeship scheme. It states:

“Time spent in the real work environment will be in the form of the one day per week work placement, with opportunity for a block placement of 6 to 8 weeks during the summer period.”

The Minister referred to rather large employers, such as Bombardier and NIE. What is the record of those companies in trying to do something over and above reducing the number of apprentices that they are taking on at this time? Those companies should be pressed to do more.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

Those two employers have probably had among the best apprenticeship schemes in Northern Ireland for many years. I have visited both training centres: NIE’s at Nutts Corner and Bombardier’s on York Street. I have no doubt that, if Bombardier had not used an aggressive and significant apprenticeship programme for many years, that centre would be closed. Many employers walked away from apprenticeships 15 or 20 years ago, but that company did not. I believe that that is why it is still in business. Its record on apprenticeships is exemplary.

NIE has a fantastic training centre. However, it was, sadly, not able to take on any apprentices this year. That was a big blow, because it normally takes on around 40 young people each year. I visited those apprentices either last year or earlier this year; they do fantastic work. They have a wonderful facility, and they were really getting to grips with a technical and difficult but rewarding job. The fact that NIE did not take on any apprentices this year is a reflection of the economic circumstances.

NIE was one of the best examples of a company in Northern Ireland that was committed to apprenticeships. It has made significant investment in apprentices by providing training facilities and staff to teach people. However, because of the economic circumstances, it was not capable of providing the usual numbers this year. We are in regular and constant touch with those providers, because we are looking ahead to next year and hoping that, where organisations have been unable to take on trainees or have reduced their numbers, the situation will change. If a training centre does not have a first-year intake, that will create an imbalance. In other words, there is no first year, so the second and third years will be affected, and that will disrupt the whole programme.

The time that is spent in the real working environment is the big difference between employer-led and programme-led apprenticeships. I would prefer young people to be in employer-led apprenticeships, where they are constantly in a real work environment. Alongside the colleges and the other training providers, we are trying to give young people the best possible simulated work environment that we can create. It is not perfect, and it will never be a complete substitute for what happens in a business, but it is the best that we can do. We have to realise that there is only so much that government can do. The available jobs are, in most cases, in the private sector, and there is no substitute for working in a real business.

Committee Business

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I beg to move

That this Assembly agrees that restricting the education maintenance allowance (EMA) specifically to those enrolled in schools or colleges is a key factor which inhibits alternative education providers from reaching those young people who have disengaged from mainstream education; calls on the Minister for Employment and Learning to make EMA accessible to all young people who comply with the age criterion and are engaged in appropriate provision, whether this is in schools or colleges, or with a recognised alternative provider; and further calls on the Minister to engage with the alternative education providers to establish whether the current attendance criteria regarding EMA are too prescriptive.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am glad that so many members of the Committee for Employment and Learning are in the Chamber to participate in the debate, as was the case in yesterday’s debate on the provision of childcare for students in further and higher education. The Minister for Employ­ment and Learning is here to listen to the debate. He deserves particular thanks because, even though the education maintenance allowance falls also under the Minister of Education’s remit, he has agreed to respond to the motion. The issue cuts across a number of Departments, and it is important that the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) is willing to take the lead.

Access to the education maintenance allowance (EMA) is complex, as is responsibility for it. The Department of Education (DE) and the Department for Employment and Learning are responsible for disbursing EMA. However, I am struggling to form a clear picture of who has responsibility for the disengaged young people who work with alternative education and training providers outside the usual school or college set-up.

Most if not all Members, at one time or another, have met representatives of some of the organisations that provide support for young people. Those organisations are recognised, and some of their clients can access EMA. Others cannot access EMA, because they are being catered for by organisations that are not recognised, and Members can imagine the confusion that that creates. That is the first point that I want to make: the system is confusing. The Committee believes that widening access further will make things clearer and will also mean that DE and DEL must make clear decisions about their responsibilities.

Since September, the Committee for Employment and Learning Committee has engaged with several organisations that specialise in reaching young people who have disengaged from the school and college system. It received presentations from the Prince’s Trust, Rathbone, the Alternative Education Providers’ (AEP) Forum, Include Youth and others. A common theme in those presentations was that there are few incentives for young people who have had the courage to come to them and admit that they need help.

The Committee also heard from some of those young people about how those organisations have helped them to turn their lives around. However, in cases in which the programme that they follow does not include study in a school or college that would enable them to be eligible for EMA, they have to continue to claim benefits. That means that they have to take time off from their work placements and so forth to sign on. The young people who presented themselves to the Committee told us that they find that humiliating, as it does not reflect the fact that they are trying to change their situation, something for which they deserve recognition.

No one can deny that many of those young people have had a rough time. Some have spent years in care, some have been subject to bad influence and have developed addictions, and some have become estranged from their families, but they have battled those difficulties and have stuck to a programme. They should be rewarded for that, and EMA is just such a reward. They want to take pride in what they do; they do not want handouts.

The Committee understands that there must be criteria for awarding EMA. We are asking that the criteria be reviewed to include programmes, such as those run by Include Youth, in which the focus is not always on re-entry to the formal school or college setting and in which work placements and learning skills in a less formal environment are more common. The young people’s efforts should not be ignored just because they are pursuing an alternative route to employment and training.

The criteria for eligibility for EMA are weighted towards a very traditional education or training scenario. The Minister said earlier that we must consider alternative ways to provide opportunities for people to find work because of the recession. That is another issue that we need to examine. In a traditional educational training scenario, there is a necessity to undertake a particular number of hours in education or training in a recognised institution and on a recognised course. The question is whether we should be so prescriptive. The Committee believes that, if EMA was offered in a wider range of scenarios, it would be possible to engage more of those who have been failed by the traditional system. We ask for an acceptance of other routes to the same goal.

The proportion of young people here who are not in employment, education or training (NEET) is high. I recently heard estimates that one quarter of our under 25-year-olds are not in employment, education or training. Although EMA is designed for 16- to 19-year-olds, if we were a bit more creative about who could receive that payment within that age group, perhaps we could make some impact on the appalling number of young people who are not in employment, education or training.

The Committee led a debate yesterday about access to on-campus childcare at colleges and universities. I spoke about public service agreement (PSA) targets in the Programme for Government that are about building our prosperity through increasing skills and productivity and through education and training. We will never achieve our aims if we do not become creative, ask ourselves whether there is a different way in which to do things and whether there is an alternative way to think or act. We do not always have to do something because it has been done before.

In correspondence to the Committee, the Minister indicated that his Department and the Department of Education will undertake a joint review of EMA. The Committee welcomes that review and sees it as a perfect opportunity to consider how we can widen access to EMA and, perhaps by doing so, make greater inroads into dealing with our NEET problem. The Departments must engage fully with organisations that provide programmes that run outside schools and colleges. Greater numbers of programmes and participants must be recognised and rewarded by being brought within the reach of EMA.

I said that the Department of Education plays a big role in EMA; however, as Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning, I ask the Minister to examine how expanded EMA provision can be used to enhance the skills strategy and how it might better feed into the 14 to 19 strategy. The Minister’s Department is the linchpin in workforce development, and the Committee believes that the NEET issue could be improved if EMA was a more widely available incentive for the disengaged to rejoin the mainstream.

We must encourage those disengaged people to acquire skills so that they can have a role in increasing prosperity and productivity. We will achieve our economic goals only if we bring everyone along, and I know that the Minister shares our passion for social inclusion and transformation. The Committee truly believes that EMA is not being used to its greatest effect, and we feel that the Minister and his Department could make better use of it. The education maintenance allowance is too closely associated with staying at school; it should be more obviously aligned with technical and professional training outside apprenticeship programmes.

The Minister has worked hard to bring new ways of developing the workforce to the fore. We ask that he takes a fresh look at how EMA could be better used, which, in turn, would help his Department. The review of EMA comes at the perfect time to enable engagement with alternative education and training providers and to ascertain how they can use EMA to tackle the NEET problem. It will also allow us to continue to chip away at the obstacles to greater and more inclusive prosperity. I commend the motion to the House.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

I welcome today’s debate, and, after the recent announcement, I look forward to the review of the education maintenance allowance later this year. The Committee examined the issue closely, and the Chairperson indicated the depth of our considerations. The stories of the young people who appeared before the Committee were both moving and encouraging.

I may be stating the obvious, but young people who leave school with fewer than five GCSEs are more likely to fall into unemployment than those who have more than five GCSEs. That fact highlights the complexity of the issue, and, indeed, it may have been more appropriate for a different Minister to have been present for today’s debate. The 2005 Northern Ireland young life and times survey revealed that 20% of young people whose families were not well off decided not go back to school; the figure for young people from well-off families is only 5%. It is unfair that the financial circumstances of young people’s families have a significant impact on their choice between full-time education and employment.

The education maintenance allowance will undoubtedly have an influence and make it more financially feasible for some students to return to full-time education. Indeed, the allowance has increased participation in full-time education among eligible 16-year-olds by some 5·9%. I ask the Minister that the review is mindful of potential areas of unfairness. For example, if a family has more than one child in full-time education, will it be possible for all of them to claim the allowance? Students’ attendance must be strictly recorded, and absence must be authorised. Will students who have been absent for a week without justification or approval lose their allowance for that week?

I also ask that the application process be simple and that decisions on eligibility be made quickly. Such decisions may be a key factor when students are trying to decide whether to return to education. Currently, some 4,000 applications cannot be processed because certain information is missing from the application forms. That suggests that the application forms are not as straightforward as they could be. Difficulties are being encountered, and assistance may be required. Other problems may arise from the fact that no account is taken of students’ income. That needs to be reviewed because many students may have savings or an inheritance. I ask the Minister and the Department, at the very least, to consider reviewing those criteria and, if possible, to put a cap on the amount of savings that is deemed reasonable before EMA is disallowed.

I congratulate the Minister and the Department on the allowance’s success since its introduction in 2004, and I look forward to more students from low-income backgrounds returning to full-time education. There is an obvious need to engage with alternative education providers and to reach out to young people who have disengaged from mainstream education. I acknowledge that it is a very complex issue, but I support the motion.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for tabling the motion, but I must say that I have great difficulty with it and cannot support it. However, I will not push for a Division.

The main reason why my colleagues and I cannot support the motion is that we believe that it has been tabled by the wrong Committee and is being directed to the wrong Minister. Although DEL has a role in the provision of the EMA, that role seems to me a very small one. The lead Department is very much the Department of Education, and I suggest to the Chairperson that it would have been better if, in the first instance, the matter had been brought to the attention of the Minister of Education. That said, I congratulate the Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning on doing an excellent job; her commitment and dedication are remarkable. However, if there is a problem with the EMA, the Chairperson would be best to approach her colleague the Minister of Education about it.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I cannot let those remarks go —

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Were you off getting a departmental briefing there?

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

No, I was actually talking about you.

Bob, I know that it is your birthday week, but I cannot let your remarks go without commenting on them. I know that other Departments are involved with the EMA, but young people have come to the Committee for Employment and Learning about the matter, so responsibility lies with DEL. DEL is responsible for people aged between 16 and 24. We want the Department to take the lead on the EMA. That is not a criticism of the Minister for Employment and Learning, for he is doing a good job. We want DEL to take the lead in targeting those young people, and then we will look at the other Departments that are involved with the EMA.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Chairperson for that explanation, but I must point out that it is the Department of Education that adjudicates on which courses fall within the scope of the rule on the 15 hours’ teaching time, among other rules. I must also highlight the fact that the motion fails to identify where the extra money would come from, which is an especially serious problem at this time of tight budgets.

It may well be that the rules need to be extended, but we need to do much more work to identify whether that is, in fact, the case. At this time of strained public finances, we cannot go around make spending pledges in that way. We must go through a robust process of identifying need, ways to tackle that need and the benefits of the chosen policy tool. It is clear that we have not gone through that process, and, as a result, I cannot support the motion.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the motion from the Committee for Employment and Learning, and I look forward to the contribution from the Minister. The education maintenance allowance is a useful, targeted package that encourages and enables young people to remain in education. It sends a strong signal from the state about the importance of education, and it is an investment in all our people, particularly young people, which will pay clear dividends in future.

I am aware that, in the community sector, the EMA is generally managed by the Department of Education in partnership with DEL, but I am confident that both Ministers will be sympathetic to some of the points raised by my colleague Robert Coulter. I am also confident that they would be sympathetic to the views of the particular group of young people who addressed the Committee and to which we have referred today.

I support the Chairperson’s earlier comments. I also recently listened to staff and young people from Include Youth and the Give and Take programme, and I was impressed by their dedication and professionalism. They do valuable work with the young people who have been referred to them, particularly by social services, for a range of reasons. Those young people may have mental health and behavioural problems or be leaving the care system, and they may find that, although they want to pick up on their education, they are unable to cope with the fundamentals of the mainstream education system.

Those young people are doing their best, because they want to be full and active members of society. They want to develop and contribute, and it is important that they are assisted and encouraged in doing so.

The Give and Take programme gives young people confidence, and it equips them with the foundation skills and, more importantly, the qualifications that can lead them to EMA-level courses. It is unfortunate, however, that those young people are unable to avail themselves of the benefits of the EMA. It should be obvious that young people should be educated based on their current level of development, rather than where they should be, based on their age. The level of a course must be appropriate to their needs. It seems reasonable that those and other young people who need support at a similar educational or developmental level should have access to funding under the EMA or a similar funding stream.

I ask the Minister, along with his counterpart in the Department of Education, to review the workings of the EMA. A cross-departmental approach is required to achieve the objectives of encouraging young people to remain in full-time education and ensuring that they are eligible for the EMA based on courses that are appropriate to their educational needs, no matter what their developmental starting point.

Yesterday, Members talked about how access to childcare provision encourages mothers to remain in education; the funding of young people is no different. The Committee works extremely hard to ensure that everyone has access to employment. However, third-level qualifications are the passport to employment, and those can be made available to vulnerable groups, including isolated young people.

Common sense should prevail. The Chairperson was right that the Committee for Employment and Learning was asked to address a particular problem. We have done so by bringing the motion to the Chamber and asking the Minister for Employment and Learning to contribute to achieving its aims. However, it is also important that he work with his counterpart in the Department of Education. I support the motion.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning for bringing the motion, which I support, to the House. Given that DEL is to go ahead with a review of the EMA in Northern Ireland later this year and is also reviewing alternative education provision, the debate on such an important issue is timely.

The situation has been confusing because some alternative education providers (AEPs) are recognised by the Department of Education as offering education and training to young people who are not full-time students at school or college. Some clients claim the EMA via the Department of Education, even when they are associated with a college rather than a school. Therefore, we need clarification on who is entitled to claim the EMA.

I agree that we should consider making the EMA accessible to all young people. Based on the 2004 mid-year population estimate, approximately 39% of 16-year-olds in Northern Ireland were in receipt of the EMA in the first year of its roll-out. Members heard earlier that young people on programme-led apprenticeships will be able to claim the EMA. It is, therefore, important to look into and clarify the situation. Will all young people receive the EMA, dependent on their meeting the age criterion and on whether they are engaged in appropriate educational provision, be that in schools, colleges or through recognised alternative providers?

Far too many school leavers have few or no qualifications, and many of those are from disadvantaged communities. Research shows that four times as many young people from poorer families as from families that are well off do not intend to stay on at school beyond the age for which education is compulsory. Many research studies have also shown that income is strongly related to a person’s level of education.

On average in Northern Ireland, an extra year of education adds 8% to male earnings and 12% to female earnings. Young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, including those who leave care or are excluded from mainstream education, very much need help and encouragement so that they do not fall into the category of not in education, employment or training. The economic downturn has led to very high youth unemploy­ment. More school leavers want to carry on in education and training. We need investment in our workplace, and the people will be the assets in our educational capital.

Research that was done in England showed that the EMA increased participation in full-time education among eligible 16-year-olds by 5·9%, with the largest effect being on young people from lower socio-economic groups. The EMA also had a substantial impact on young people who had been low or moderate achievers at the end of year 11. It is important that we try to increase the retention of young people in full-time education by providing them with the EMA.

The motion also calls on the Minister to engage with alternative education providers. I very much agree with that. As others have said, young people have told the Committee about the positive impact that they have had through various programmes, such as Include Youth.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

The Member should draw her remarks to a close.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I very much support the call for the Minister to engage with those providers.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

This is a very complex issue. Discussions and debate on this matter in the Committee for Employment and Learning have shown that there is a clear cross-departmental onus on the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department of Education to clarify which of the recognised alternative education providers are able to attract the education maintenance allowance and which are not.

Alternative education providers play a very active role in ensuring that a good number of young people who may otherwise have slipped off the radar in relation to continuing in some form of education are assisted in pursuing an alternative course or programme. However, if a section of those young people are engaged by an alternative provider whose courses do not attract an award of education maintenance allowance, an award should be made in the appropriate circumstances.

I note that a review of the education maintenance allowance is due to take place later this year. I urge the Department of Education and the Department for Employment and Learning to work closely to facilitate those providers that do not currently fall within the EMA criteria.

I know of a few programmes in my constituency that cater for young people who decide to drop out of school. There are notable changes in the young people after they complete those courses. More young people in those circumstances could be targeted if the EMA were more widely available.

The Committee heard at first hand from students who completed alternative courses and who were not entitled to the award. It was much more difficult for them; they felt that if they had been able to access the allowance, it would have made the process more straightforward and less of a financial burden.

Given that a review is due before the end of the year, I hope that the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department of Education take a cross-departmental approach to this issue and work together to provide the allowance across the alternative education sector.

Paul Butler (Sinn Féin, Lagan Valley)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome that this motion has been brought to the Chamber.

The motion is addressing the fact that a category of young people is missing out on full-time education and training and attending further education colleges. Some groups have told the Committee for Employment and Learning how difficult it was for them to get into training or further education and to get a job and a better life. They were missing out, if one likes, when it came to EMA.

I accept, and it was pointed out by Committee Chairperson, Sue Ramsey, that the responsibility extends beyond the Minister for Employment and Learning, Reg Empey. The Minister of Education also has a role. Most young people who avail themselves of EMA do not leave post-primary education; they usually stay on and claim the allowance, or their school is involved in a partnership with a further education college.

However, we recognise that there are people who are involved with alternative education providers, and the Committee has met several such organisations in recent months. Such people have had to overcome barriers in their lives, and we heard compelling stories of those who had overcome such barriers. However, they were facing another barrier, which was having to sign on, and not being entitled to receive EMA. The motion is trying to address the fact that, although we accept that there are two Ministers involved in the issue, the Employment and Learning Committee is putting the issue to the Minister for Employment and Learning, who must take it up with Catríona Ruane.

I am sorry that one of the Committee members, Bob Coulter, does not support the motion. A long time ago, I was told that the older one gets the more militant and cantankerous one becomes. I do not know whether one reaches the outer limits of militancy at the age of 80, but broadly, given what Bob has said, we are not criticising the Minister on the issue. We accept what the Minister has said about reviewing EMA, which I assume will be carried out by his Department and the Education Department.

The Minister spoke earlier about the apprentice-led programme. In his statement, he said that staying on and taking up a place in a further education college was not an option. However, it is one of the options that the young people to whom we have talked over recent months want to take. They want to go on to further education. Entitlement to EMA is a complex issue, but research shows that many people from disadvantaged backgrounds or lower-income families are helped by EMA to first get into full-time employment, from which they progress to a job.

Some people from whom the Committee heard have done just that in the absence of EMA. Therefore, the allowance is an issue that must be addressed. Ways must be found to remove barriers for people, so that they can progress and claim the allowance to which they are entitled. I support the motion, and I hope that Rev Robert Coulter has listened to some of our arguments. I accept that the Minister is reviewing EMA, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s statement. Go raibh maith agat.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I am sure that all Members agree that Bob is young at heart and definitely not cantankerous.

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As a Committee member, I support the motion. Notwithstanding Rev Robert Coulter’s reservations, I believe that the essence of the motion is about widening access. Yesterday, members debated childcare provision, through a motion that was moved by the Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning. I commend the Committee for tabling both those motions.

Widening access to education maintenance allowance is a Programme for Government target, and nothing in the motion conflicts with that goal. As I said yesterday, the Committee wishes to encourage young people to engage with education and to make it, in whatever form, attractive to them. That applies particularly to those who have become disengaged with education or who are from low-income families and find that cost is a barrier to attending school or college. To some extent, EMA addresses that problem, although not entirely.

As Paul Butler said, the Committee heard from young people who, in order to sign on, had to stop doing the extremely valuable work that they were doing, possibly with a parent. However, they did not want to do that. Therefore, we must respect what those young people were doing, and we must find some way round the problem.

I was looking through some old questions for written answer, and I noticed a reply, on 29 February 2008, to Miss McIlveen, who had asked why EMA is sometimes refused. If I remember correctly, from the beginning of 2007 until 22 January 2008, education maintenance allowance was refused 69 times because the learning centre concerned was not recognised. What kind of work had been going on in those centres? The motion states that young people must be “engaged in appropriate provision”; however, if in that short space of time EMA was refused to 69 people who were attending unrecognised centres, we must look into what happened.

In another question for written answer, the Minister for Employment and Learning’s response to my colleague Fra McCann was insightful in distinguishing between education provision that qualifies for EMA and alternative provision that does not. Although it is good that EMA is based on attendance, we have to look at what happens when young people do attend. I am not saying that good work is not being done in centres that are eligible for EMA, but the qualifying criteria emphasise being present. I got a sense from the young people who gave evidence to the Committee that their work is very valuable and helpful and that they had overcome barriers by engaging in it.

I shall finish by mentioning some of the interesting research that Committee members were provided with. I was surprised to discover that pupils who attend a grammar school are more informed about EMA than those who do not attend a grammar school; the figure is something like 96% as opposed to 86%. Those figures may not be accurate, but one key statistic in a Devine and Lloyd research paper was that 51% of people from poor families said that EMA would influence their decision to attend education.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

The Member’s time to speak is up.

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I support the motion. Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion as it begins a debate on the important issues raised by the Alternative Education Providers’ Forum which gave evidence to the Committee. I thank all the Members who have contributed to the debate. It is interesting that the praise heaped on my colleague Reverend Coulter did not last too long. As was said yesterday, no quarter is asked and none given.

Ownership of the EMA policy rests with the Department of Education and my Department. Therefore, I am mindful of the need to take a joint approach when looking at the policy. It will be useful to explain why the EMA scheme was introduced jointly in September 2004 by my Department and the Department of Education.

The main purpose of the scheme is to enable young people from lower-income backgrounds to remain in post-compulsory education at school or college, with the key objective of raising participation, retention and achievement rates in the eligible group and addressing the well-established link between low attainment and low income. Some 23,143 students applied for inclusion in the scheme in the last academic year in Northern Ireland.

The allowance is linked to satisfactory attendance and is paid on a fortnightly basis. In addition to the allowance, young people may also receive periodic bonuses of £100, if they remain on their courses and make good progress with their learning. EMA is provided to eligible students in approved learning centres, which are mainstream schools, colleges, FE colleges and, in a very few cases, alternative education providers outside the mainstream that can deliver education to meet EMA requirements.

My Department is responsible for students in FE colleges and the Department of Education is responsible for those in schools, colleges and other education providers. Provision of EMA is closely monitored in all the learning centres and is dependent upon learning agreements having been signed and agreed by the learning centres and the students. It is attendance based.

It often happens with national schemes that differences exist between devolved Administrations. This is the case with respect to the number of guided or teacher-contact hours each week. In Northern Ireland, there is a requirement for a student to undertake a minimum of 15 guided hours each week to qualify for EMA payments, compared to 12 guided or teacher-contact hours in Wales and 21 guided hours in Scotland. England has a slightly different set of rules whereby each student is required to undertake 12 hours of further education courses and 16 guided hours of work-based and diploma courses.

The term “guided hours” is defined as contact teaching hours that a student must receive in order to be eligible for EMA. Courses must, therefore, be taught in a timetabled teaching slot, when the teacher is engaged in teaching students. Days at home, or at the library, to study do not count as guided hours. The number of guided hours is something that will be considered under the joint Department for Employment and Learning and Department of Education review of EMA, which I will come to later.

The motion focuses on young people who are outside mainstream education. I understand from the Department of Education that there are more than 500 such young people in Northern Ireland, and the number includes those who are not in education, employment or training. It is worth mentioning that the Youth Service, supported by the Department of Education, already provides significant support to young people in that position. That support includes the Prince’s Trust’s xl Programme for 14- to 16-year-olds who are at risk of exclusion, which operates in 40 schools; the Youth Action Community Leadership Programme for 14- to 25-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds, and the Department of Education’s Youth Works Programme for 16- to 17-year-olds in communities suffering the greatest economic social deprivation. My Department also co-funds the Bytes Project with the Department of Education. It operates in 10 centres and is for 16- to 25-year-olds with little or no formal education. Members will be familiar with some of those schemes.

There is also provision under my Department’s Training for Success programme, specifically the option of “skills for your life”, which addresses the particular needs of young people who have significant barriers to learning, such as poor literacy and numeracy, no qualifications or substance abuse. A weekly allowance of £40, which is not means-tested, is provided. Organisations that have the contract for that provision have significant skills in dealing with those young people. However, despite the support, there are still young people who are not benefiting from adequate education and training.

Alternative education provision is another way to support those young people. The Department of Education has told me that it recognised the need for alternative education provision in 1998 with the publication of ‘Promoting and Sustaining Good Behaviour: A Discipline Strategy for Schools’. That set out a support model of progressively more intensive interventions for pupils whose behaviour was challenging, with the objective of maintaining pupils in mainstream schooling. It was accepted that remaining in mainstream schooling was not a realistic option for a very small number of pupils and that, due to the severity of their behavioural issues or the degree of their disaffection, some form of alternative education provision that was responsive to their needs would be necessary.

The findings that informed the strategy indicated that, across all education and library board areas, around 500 pupils in the last two years of their compulsory schooling — Key Stage 4 — would need that provision each year. The Department of Education expected that provision to be developed by the education and library boards in response to local needs and in partnership with other agencies. I understand that, since 1998, additional funding has been provided to the education and library boards to create new places or secure the continuation of places on existing projects. In 2007-08, the earmarked allocation to the boards was £4·1 million, which covers the costs of a notional 500 places.

The policy for deciding whether courses warrant an EMA payment is that learners on funded training programmes should be achieving qualifications that are recognised nationally and provide clear progression routes for learners’ career advancement. The national database of accredited qualifications is the reference tool that the Department of Education uses to ensure that qualifications have been accredited by the regulators and, therefore, are nationally recognised. I understand from the Department of Education that some community groups which meet the EMA criteria have benefited from the scheme already.

There is provision in the EMA scheme to identify students with special educational needs or vulnerable students. Those students can include homeless young people, those with probation orders, teenaged parents and those with caring responsibilities. Therefore, tailoring the course around the student’s ability to attend is important, as is being flexible and aware of additional needs. The courses and the payments of EMA can be extended over a four-year period as opposed to the usual three-year period in order to help to meet those specific needs. On that point of attendance, Mr Hilditch mentioned earlier that illness can lead to absenteeism; I assure Members that students will not lose their allowances if they have a doctor’s line.

I understand from the Department of Education that a consultation paper will be issued early in the new year with recommendations that aim to improve the service currently provided in the area of alternative education. Although it is important to keep an open mind on course providers, it is also important to keep a uniform approach to the EMA scheme. I certainly do not want to pre-empt the outcomes of the alternative education provision review, but I would welcome an opportunity for my officials to meet officials from the Department of Education to agree how the EMA scheme could encourage students to re-engage with education in local learning and community centres, provided that those meet the EMA scheme rules.

Later this year, my Department and the Department of Education will commence the first joint review of EMA in Northern Ireland since its introduction in 2004. The aim of the review is to assess whether the scheme is meeting its set goals, which include encouraging students from lower-income families to stay in mainstream education and achieve qualifications, and is delivering value for money.

Methods of delivery and duration will also be reviewed. Any alternative education provision run by the education and library boards or by approved community-based training will be a matter for the Department of Education.

Two separate reviews are being progressed, so it would be prudent for my Department and the Department of Education to consider the reviews’ recommendations together in order to determine the best way forward for the EMA scheme and adult education in Northern Ireland. The Minister of Education and I will be studying carefully the Hansard report of today’s debate and the points that a number of Members made. Education maintenance allowance is one of those areas that crosses departmental responsibilities. The bulk of the policy lies with the Department of Education, although my Department wields influence. We are undertaking both the reviews, and, hopefully, one will commence later this year, and a paper will be presented early in the new year.

I suspect an added complication will arise, since the existing education and library boards are to be collapsed into the education and skills authority. That may add an extra dimension to the review. Therefore, this may be a timely opportunity for a review. It is a quinquennial review, because the EMA was introduced in 2004. It is difficult to predict what implications the added complication of the introduction of ESA will have for the review. I will ensure that my colleague the Minister of Education receives a copy of the debate for her perusal, and, no doubt, the points that have been raised will be considered when the reviews are commenced.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the Members who participated in the debate, as well as those who took an interest in it. I also thank the Minister for coming to the House to respond to the debate. I agree that the EMA falls within the remit of the Department of Education more than that of the Department for Employment and Learning. However, the motion related to a specific need that came before our Committee, and that is why the motion sought a response from the Minister for Employment and Learning. I also thank the Minister for his indication that a joint review of the EMA is to be carried out by his Department and the Department of Education. The Committee hopes that the issues raised in the debate will be taken into account during the review.

Many research figures have shown that a person’s income relates to the level of his or her education. In Northern Ireland, an extra year spent in education adds an average of 8% to a male’s earnings and 12% to a female’s earnings. Moreover, statistics show that young people in Northern Ireland who leave school at the age of 16 with fewer than five GCSEs are more likely to be unemployed than those who leave school with more than five GCSEs. Although such findings provide clear evidence of the benefits available to individuals who stay in education, they also point to the fact that any investment in education is more likely to be a sound investment for the Northern Ireland economy. That is why it is so important that the EMA be made accessible to alternative education providers who are seeking to reach the young people who are disengaged from mainstream education.

David Hilditch said that people who leave school with fewer than five GCSEs are more likely to become unemployed than those with more than five GCSEs, and he highlighted the complexity of that matter. He said that the extension of EMA would encourage many more young people back into full-time education and that the application process should be made simpler for potential students. He encouraged the Minister to engage with all alternative education providers, and the Committee agrees with that sentiment.

Robert Coulter had difficulties with the motion and indicated that he could not support it because it was being directed from the wrong Committee to the wrong Minister. He stated that the lead Department should be the Department of Education and that DEL played only a small role in EMA. He also asked where the extra finance would come from in such tight economic times if EMA were extended beyond schools and colleges. I say to Reverend Coulter that the debate deals with an issue that was raised in Committee, and, although the Committee agrees that the lead Department is the Department of Education, it has tabled the motion as a response to the issue.

Pat Ramsey spoke about how EMA was a useful package that enabled young people to remain in education. He was also mindful of the fact that EMA is managed primarily by the Department of Education, with the support of DEL. Indeed, every Member who spoke in the debate has recognised that EMA is a cross-departmental issue and that the onus is not just on DEL.

Mr Ramsey went on to speak about how EMA helps young people from poor social backgrounds who want to expand their educational potential but who are unable to avail of EMA. That is the issue. He also acknowledged that the Committee was seeking to address a particular issue that it had been presented with.

Anna Lo spoke about the need to clarify who is entitled to EMA. She suggested that the allowance should be made available to all young people. She went on to say that it should be available not just to those who are attending schools and colleges but to those attending all education providers. Ms Lo also said that four times as many young people from poorer families did not intend to stay on at school. Those are the people who need to receive help, encouragement and support that will have a positive impact on our entire community.

William Irwin spoke about the clear cross-departmental onus and which Department should be the lead Department. He said that students who engage with alternative education providers should receive EMA. He also stated that other education providers who take on young people and seek to get them into education and training should be included in the conditions for EMA and that more young people could be brought into the education and training realm if EMA were made more widely accessible.

Paul Butler accepted that there was an onus on both Ministers on the matter. He said that the motion sought only to address the needs of young people from whom the Committee had taken evidence.

The Minister for Employment and Learning in his response to the debate stated that he was mindful of the need for a joint approach to EMA and explained why it was introduced in the first place. He said that his Department is responsible for students in FE colleges and that only those attendance-based students who undertake 15 guided hours per week qualify for EMA.

The Minister said that provision was being made for 500 young people for whom mainstream schooling was not a realistic option. Furthermore, he indicated that there are forms of support for those not in schools or colleges and highlighted some of the schemes that the Department was involved in either individually or collectively with the Department of Education. Moreover, he acknowledged that, despite all the support that is already available, there were still young people who had not re-engaged with the education sector.

The Minister referred to the policy on qualification for the EMA scheme and how it was important to ensure that any courses were tailored to fit the needs of the students and allow for flexibility. He talked about the joint review and how we need to ensure that it is delivering value for money. It is an important issue, and we must examine it to ensure that it is delivering value for money. I welcome the fact that the Minister said that he would look closely at the issues raised in the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly agrees that restricting the education maintenance allowance (EMA) specifically to those enrolled in schools or colleges is a key factor which inhibits alternative education providers from reaching those young people who have disengaged from mainstream education; calls on the Minister for Employment and Learning to make EMA accessible to all young people who comply with the age criterion and are engaged in appropriate provision, whether this is in schools or colleges, or with a recognised alternative provider; and further calls on the Minister to engage with the alternative education providers to establish whether the current attendance criteria regarding EMA are too prescriptive.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately upon the lunchtime suspension. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

The sitting was suspended at 12.16 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

2.00 pm

Private Members’ Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer will have 10 minutes in which to propose the motion and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. One amendment has been selected and published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of the amendment will have 10 minutes in which to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the verdict of the Republic of Ireland electorate on the Lisbon Treaty referendum; reaffirms its support for a referendum in the United Kingdom on the treaty; and calls for a declaration from those parties aspiring to form the incoming Government of the United Kingdom to give an unequivocal commitment to hold, within a twelve month period from assuming office in 2010, a binding referendum on the Lisbon Treaty that is unconditional and unrelated to how other member states choose to vote, and the result of which will not be held in abeyance pending a further referendum on the subject.

Every so often, the Assembly is criticised for holding debates on issues that are not relevant or important to people’s lives, but I suspect that not many people will put this debate and its subject matter in that category.

There is nothing more fundamental than examining the position that citizens would adopt on the future direction of the nation state to which they belong, its composition — in our case, the composition of the United Kingdom — within the European Union, and where the direction taken is likely to lead to generations from now. The debate on the Lisbon Treaty should go to the very heart of how people view their democratic principles, how they view society as a whole and how they view the way in which the nation state to which they belong is likely to be governed in future years.

The Lisbon Treaty is the latest in a series of such treaties, all of which have been viewed in a particular way by great swathes of society across the United Kingdom. For example, people took up positions on whether they should or should not be consulted over the UK’s 1973 accession into what was then the Common Market. Many people considered it a cop-out that its citizens were consulted after the UK entered the Common Market, instead of their being consulted first. In more recent years, the Maastricht Treaty was signed, and, again, many people viewed that treaty as being fundamental. They felt that it went to the heart of personal individual liberties and signposted how government would be conducted in the United Kingdom in future. Now we have the Lisbon Treaty.

I should say at this stage that although I have no doubt that Members will express views — both personal and party views — on whether they are Euro-sceptic or whether they are intensely or moderately pro-European, that is not the heart of the motion before the Assembly.

The issue of whether people are for or against greater European integration is almost, although not quite, irrelevant. At the heart of the motion is the principle that, if the Lisbon Treaty or any development that follows it, amounts to a fundamental change in the status of the nation state, the citizens of the nation state ought to have the right to express their view by way of a referendum.

Unfortunately, some people in Brussels appear to think that that is a bad thing. An ardent pro-European might look to previous referendum results. Several EU states held a vote on a European constitution, and the people gave their verdict that they did not want it. An ardent pro-European might say that, if the people are going to say no to a referendum when asked, they should not be asked any more. Alternatively, as was the case with the Irish Republic, an ardent pro-European might say that the people who said no to the Lisbon Treaty should be asked again until they say yes. That appears to be at the heart of the views of some of those who stride the corridors of power in Brussels.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Member concede that, after the Republic of Ireland said no to the initial referendum, some concessions were awarded? Those concessions allowed the people to say yes in the repeat referendum. That is quite often the case when a referendum is carried out a second time.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

To some degree, the Member is correct, but he omitted to mention the fact that, between the two referendums in the Irish Republic, the most significant economic downturn in the history not only of Europe but of the world took place.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Will the Member agree that not a single line, sentence or word of the treaty was changed between the first referendum and the second referendum?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

That is exactly what I was referring to when I mentioned peripheral and minor issues. Undoubtedly, if fundamental change is to be made to the constitution of a nation state either in the EU or out of it, the last thing that anyone should advocate is that the citizens of that nation state should not be asked what they think about that change. I imagine and hope that no democrat would subscribe to that. That is at the heart of the motion.

As my friend and colleague from Strangford Mr Hamilton said, no change was made to the wording of the treaty. The Lisbon Treaty and the proposed European constitution contained proposals for a politician to be chosen as President of the European Council for two and a half years and for a new post, combining the jobs of the existing foreign affairs supremo and the Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy. Those proposals are intended to give the EU more clout on the world stage, a smaller Commission and a redistribution of voting weights among member states.

The proposals were contained in the original proposed European constitution, which several nation states rejected. Once they had been rejected, the bureaucrats in Brussels decided that they would circumvent that annoying aspect of democracy, the principle that people have the right to decide their future, and they came up with the Lisbon Treaty. The Czech President has said that he will sign up to the Lisbon Treaty, and some people in the Conservative Party in GB have said that there is no point in having a referendum on it. There is now even more point in having a referendum. That goes to the very heart of what we can do in Europe after we have said either yes or no to greater integration.

I come back to what I said a few moments ago: there cannot be a political system that permits people to say no to further European integration, but permits them to do that provided that they will be asked again until they say yes. At the same time, the system says that when they have said yes to European integration, they cannot say that they want to rethink their position and, perhaps, say no. That is intolerable and cannot be allowed to happen.

Some members of the Conservative Party seem to advocate that position. They say that when the last nation state to ratify the treaty, the Czech Republic, has done so — Poland having done so already — and we are past that post, we cannot go back. I reject that entirely.

The rights of people of individual nation states must be re-established. Those rights are long cherished and long established, some of which, in certain nation states, including our own, have been established for thousands of years. They cannot simply be set to one side because certain people want Europe to evolve even further and will not allow individual nation states and their citizens to have their say.

The amendment is interesting. I am not sure how much approval it has been given, although I assume that the wording of the amendment has been approved at the very top, by David Cameron.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member must bring his remarks to a close.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I see smiling faces from the Ulster Unionist Party Benches. Therefore, I am sure that it has been given that approval. I look forward to that party endorsing it at Westminster.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after ‘calls’ and insert

“on the UK Parliament to rescind the United Kingdom’s ratification of the Treaty; and further calls on those parties who aspire to form the next Government to hold a referendum to halt the ratification process across the European Union.”

I thank the DUP Members for bringing forward the motion. However, my party believes that it is necessary to amend the motion, which is flawed, and I will discuss that in a moment.

At the outset, I want to state emphatically that the Ulster Unionist Party is not anti-Europe; nor does it want the United Kingdom to withdraw from Europe. I am not clear about the DUP’s position on that issue. Perhaps, Mr Campbell’s colleagues will take the opportunity to declare whether they wish the United Kingdom to withdraw formally from the European Union.

It is worth mentioning and remembering that there are considerable —

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he accept that withdrawing from or remaining in the EU plays no part in the Lisbon Treaty, which is the subject of the debate?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I accept what the Member has said. However, the difficulty is that he has left vague his view on whether the DUP sees the European Union as important. Bear in mind that membership of the EU has brought significant benefits for the people of Northern Ireland.

That is not to say that the members of my party are uncritical proponents of ever-greater union between European states. We support co-operation between free nations for mutual advantage. However, we oppose over-regulation and harmonisation measures in key areas where we believe Westminster to be the best judge. We have also long campaigned for a referendum on the European Constitution, which is now the Treaty of Lisbon.

I remind Members that, as far back as 2004, my party’s European manifesto stated:

“The people should have their say when it is agreed, not when it suits Labour’s electoral interests. An EU Constitution might have been useful if it just consolidated existing treaties. In reality, it is yet another attempt to create an EU super-state.”

We stand over that pledge, which we consider equally applicable now. For even more clarity, let me quote our 2009 European manifesto, which states:

“We pledge that if the Lisbon Treaty is not in force in the event of the election of a Conservative Government this year or next, we will hold a referendum on it, urge its rejection, and — if successful — reverse the UK’s ratification. And if the Constitution is already in force by then, we have made clear that in our view political integration in the EU would have gone too far, the Treaty would lack democratic legitimacy, and we would not let matters rest there.”

Our position is —

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

To stand idly by.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I remind Mr Ford that on 8 October 2007, he told the House:

“A referendum on the EU treaty is long overdue: bring it on.” — [Official Report, Bound Volume 24, p248, col 1].

Is that still his position?

Our position, and the position of our partners, the Conservative Party, has not changed at all, just as the European Constitution did not change when it was rebranded the “Lisbon Treaty”. We support a referendum. It is rather curious that the DUP is looking to the next Government, rather than the current Government, to bring forward a referendum. Surely the DUP should be pressing Gordon Brown and the Labour Administration, with whom it has considerable contact, to bring forward a referendum proposal. We support a referendum, and, if in government, we will allow a referendum, should a meaningful one be possible.

My colleagues and I have brought forward an amendment —

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Sorry, I have to make progress.

We have brought forward an amendment that makes the motion more coherent and grounded in fact. Quite frankly, there are a couple of reasons why the unamended motion is not good. First, in our view, it is constitutionally illiterate, calling, as it does, on the next UK Government to hold a binding referendum. There is no such thing in the British Constitution. The British Constitution is founded on the principle that Parliament is sovereign; therefore, the decisions of Parliament are binding. However, some DUP members, even those who are Members of the House of Commons, appear to have limited knowledge of that. In October 2007, a DUP Member told the House:

“there is no such thing as a British Constitution.” [Official Report, Bound Volume 24, p255, col 2].

The DUP can hardly be expected to bring forward a motion that takes account of a constitution that it does not believe exists. For the information of all Members, there are 59 books on the British Constitution in the House of Commons Library. DUP Members may wish to consult some of those before embarrassing themselves again.

Our amendment removes the superfluous word —

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am making progress; I gave way earlier to the Member’s colleague.

The amendment removes the superfluous word “binding” and calls on the incoming Government to hold a referendum, but only after asking Parliament to rescind its ratification of the treaty, which was completed on 19 June 2008, which would then have the effect of halting the ratification of the treaty.

It must be made clear that, in the real world, it will not be possible for the UK to do that should the Czech Republic finalise its ratification, a point on which our manifesto is clear. Although it may be desirable and welcome for the British people to have their say on the treaty, a referendum specifically on the Lisbon Treaty would be meaningful only if it had the effect of halting the ratification process. Given that the Czech Republic is on the verge of completing that process, we must recognise that reality.

I am grateful to the DUP Members who sponsored the motion in that they have, at least, acknowledged that the only party with a realistic chance of forming the next national Government is the Ulster Unionist Party, in conjunction with the Conservative Party. Only parties — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member has the Floor.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Only parties that seek a national mandate can bring change to national politics, and only those parties can bring something new to Northern Ireland.

The DUP does not offer the people of Northern Ireland a referendum on Lisbon: it offers them a commitment to talk about one. The Ulster Unionist Party offers the people of Northern Ireland a say on Europe, a say on defence matters and a say on the United Kingdom’s foreign policy. Therefore, the Ulster Unionist Party offers the people of Northern Ireland something that they have not had for a very long time: a real say in national affairs. While we have been securing our place at the heart of national politics, the DUP has been making sure that it remains on the periphery.

Mrs Robinson’s nine fingers damaged the DUP in the House of Commons. I do not particularly care about that, but it also damaged the reputations of Northern Ireland and unionism. Our alliance with the Conservative Party received a mandate from the people of Northern Ireland in the recent European election. We will continue to seek a referendum for as long as one is possible.

Hopefully, the Ulster Unionists and the Conservatives will pursue that aim and policy from the Government Benches, which is where real influence is exerted and where real change takes place. The Ulster Unionist Party looks forward to the challenge of the Westminster election and other forthcoming elections.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I have listened intently to the Member, and it is vitally important that he sticks to the motion. The Member has strayed outside the motion.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

The amendment offers action, and I commend it to the House.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

I accept and respect the democratic principles on which the European Community was founded. Given the challenges to global economics that emerged, it was inevitable that the European Community would evolve. That is the kernel of Sinn Féin’s opposition to the Lisbon Treaty.

The European Union has fundamentally shifted away from being a union that was based on co-operation between nation states to exercise their collective strengths to mutual benefit. Our objection to the Lisbon Treaty is based on a careful analysis of the treaty, which is more than can be said for the “Yes” camp, particularly during the campaign on the first referendum. The rerun of the referendum further demonstrated that fundamental point — and here I acknowledge the unique experience of agreeing with Gregory Campbell on that issue. My party and I will support the motion.

There has been a strategic and fundamental step away from the democratic rights of the citizens of Europe. The electorate in the Twenty-six Counties faced a very difficult challenge, particularly during the rerun of the referendum, given all of the blacklisting and blackballing that resulted from its rejection of the Lisbon Treaty in the first referendum. That illustrated that democratic opinion does not count to those who proposed the Lisbon Treaty.

In the debates on the first and second referendums, we witnessed the spectacle of those who strongly advocated a “Yes” vote not having any familiarity with the document that they were defending and recommending for acceptance.

The contempt for the first result was reflected in the fact that they did not take the time or trouble to read the document in the first place. The changes were cosmetic, which time will demonstrate. Time will also demonstrate that the Southern Irish electorate was sandbagged. This proposition argues the principle that citizens of European Union member states have a democratic right to vote on fundamental decisions that shift power towards the centre, towards the European Commission or towards the Council of Ministers and away from the Parliament. That is a departure from democratic principles.

The treaty could permit the establishment of a standing military force and could give the European Commission the power to authorise military interventions by that force. Those are fundamental questions on which every citizen has the right to be consulted and to express their opinion. Numerous Governments in the European Union took that decision and removed citizens’ rights to participate in referendums. Some broke their manifesto commitments to hold a referendum on that question because they feared the judgement of the people. On that principle, I support the motion. Moreover, if the amendment receives sufficient support and becomes the substantive motion, we will support the amended motion.

The motion is about a British referendum and, as people will understand, is of no particular importance to Sinn Féin. However, people in Britain have a perfect right to express their views, and individual citizens of all member states have an absolute right to express their views. The fundamental departure from democratic principles is a matter of concern for people who, if the treaty is enacted and implemented, will wonder about the direction for the future.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member should bring his remarks to a close.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

There are absolutely no grounds to suggest that the European Union will reverse its position on the matter.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member’s time is up.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

If the proposition is adopted in Britain, it will perhaps be time to call a halt to this undemocratic march.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

It is no surprise that Sinn Féin and the DUP have a common cause on the European Union in the House today. It is sad that two major parties are at one in their anti-Europe stance. It is bad for society, and something that I deeply regret. It is bad for our community to send a Euro-sceptic message to Brussels. Parties should reflect deeply on that thought.

Mr McLaughlin made a point about a military pact, which is, of course, incorrect. He did not point out that all decisions on actions in the European Union must be unanimous. They cannot be subject to the majority vote of members in the European Union. Wendy Austin made a pre-referendum visit to Dublin, where she asked a lady in the street how she would vote. She replied that she would vote “No” and then asked what Europe has done for us. Wendy was flabbergasted by the response, because she recognises that the European Union has rebuilt this Republic.

Members’ attitudes reflect that lady’s opinion. The European Union has done much to enhance this society and can do a lot more.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Does the Member not understand that the motion is simply about allowing people to have their say as to whether they wish Europe to have more of an effect on their lives? Surely the Member is not saying that that in some way represents a slur on those who are calling for people to have their say?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member will have an added minute in which to speak.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I wish that what the Member said were true, but the motion is anti-European and reflects the DUP and Sinn Féin’s views on Europe, which are fundamentally against the European Union, no matter how they dress it up. People should have their say; the people in the Republic had their say on the European Union and on the Lisbon Treaty, which they supported. They expressed their views on the first referendum and got changes made to the treaty. That, I believe, shows the responsibility of any Government to go to Brussels and negotiate with our partners in order to —

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

No; my time is nearly up.

The Irish Government adopted the correct approach. The Irish people responded to that, and they gave a resounding “Yes” to the Lisbon Treaty. The last hurdle will be whether the Czech Republic decides to support the treaty, which I believe is a formality. All the procedures have been gone through, and the House of Commons has voted on the matter. The House of Commons is sovereign in that regard and is the supreme democratic forum for the British people. To suggest that we rerun that vote —

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

No; my time is nearly up.

To suggest that we rerun that vote and, in some way, resile from the position that the House of Commons adopted is wrong. It is wrong in law and wrong in parliamentary procedure. It is almost inevitable now that the Czech Republic will endorse the Lisbon Treaty. That is the right thing to do for everyone in Europe. The Lisbon Treaty improves democracy in Europe, it improves the democracy of the European Parliament, and it extends that body’s co-decision-making. The treaty permits national Parliaments to scrutinise, at an early stage, proposed EU legislation and allows —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member must bring his remarks to a close.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

Finally, the Lisbon Treaty allows the European Court of Justice to judicially review any legislation. Those matters are important to the future of Europe.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member’s time is up.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I support Alban Maginness’s comments in large measure. It will come as no surprise that my colleagues and I will oppose the motion and the amendment.

In proposing the motion, Mr Campbell made much of saying that at its heart was the fundamental issue that the people should be consulted when changes are to be made to a constitution. Leaving aside the minor detail of whether the UK has a constitution — I would have thought that Mr Campbell, as a Member in another place, had views on the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament — the blunt reality is that that was the issue in October 2007, when we debated the matter. Whether we should have had a referendum prior to ratification was a valid debating point, and a point on which, at the time, I disagreed with Alban Maginness. That, however, is not the issue that we face today. The issue is that the UK and 25 other states have ratified the Lisbon Treaty, and it appears that the Czech Republic will do so fairly soon.

The focus of the motion and the amendment is on turning back the clock, but that is simply not recognising the reality of the situation. Where do Members of both unionist parties believe that the UK’s relationship with the EU will be, if, having ratified the treaty, the UK Government, whether pre- or post-election next year, do anything to change what has been agreed as being a binding commitment to accept the new treaty? If anything were done, whether the Government were under the control of the current party, a different party or a coalition of parties, how could the Government have any credibility in future relationships with the EU?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

To be fair to colleagues on my right, that does not appear to be their position. Although the UUP has stated that it would “not let matters rest”, it has not offered a concrete position on what it will do if the treaty is ratified. I suspect that, rather than not letting the matter rest, the UUP will be gripped by a degree of motionlessness or inertia.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member has an extra minute in which to speak.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Weir for his intervention. He must have a spy in the Gallery looking over my shoulder, because he is a couple of lines ahead of me in my notes.

I agree: Mr Kennedy said on at least one occasion that Ulster Conservatives and Unionists – New Force (UCUNF) was not anti-European; yet, in practice, it has called for the ratification to be rescinded without saying how that would be done. Perhaps it is not surprising, given some of the strange creatures with whom the UUP associates in the European Parliament, that the UCUNF coalition is not quite sure where it stands. If I were to take my lead from anybody who had anything to do with that particular grouping, I would rather listen to the views of someone such as Edward McMillan-Scott, the long-standing and rather more sensible Conservative MEP, who is prepared to stand up against the nonsense of those who claim to be a progressive, non-sectarian force in the United Kingdom and who somehow associate with a rather strange bunch of people from some of the recent accession countries, with some of the particular aspects that they have.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Will the Member give way?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

No, I think that you have had your chance to make your point. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

We have to look at what Mr Kennedy quoted from the UUP’s 2009 European manifesto: he said that they “would not let matters rest”, as Mr Weir highlighted. I am old enough to remember a day in August 1969, when the then Taoiseach, Jack Lynch, was reported as having said that the Irish army, in the event of difficulties in the North, would not stand idly by — for the sake of accuracy, he did not use the word “idly” — but it seems to me that it is more disingenuous for a party to say that it will do something but will not tell anyone what that “something” is, rather than say it will overturn something even though it is not actually possible to do so.

As someone who supported the concept of a referendum when it was meaningful, realistic and possible, the position now is that it is none of those: it would be a completely pointless exercise. The UUP says that it will have a real say in national affairs, yet it has chosen to line up in a European cul-de-sac with no realistic aim or objective and no way of saying how it will advance issues within the United Kingdom that will make any sense. The UUP has nothing to offer the House or the wider UK population that could be implemented and that would make a change. To suggest that the UUP will move things forward is nonsense.

Similarly, I listened to Mr McLaughlin with interest. He called the proposition a fundamental departure from democratic principles. I must admit — this point was made by Mr Maginness — that I do not understand how making the institutions of the EU more democratic is somehow a departure from democracy. Neither can I see how giving rights to national Parliaments to have greater consultation and say is anti-democratic or how putting powers into the hands of the European Parliament rather than the alleged Brussels bureaucracy is also anti-democratic.

I firmly believe that the Lisbon Treaty has advanced the ability of Europe to continue to build the peace that was its real meaning, aspiration and success so far and to advance the economy across Europe.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I reject the motion and the amendment.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Members who spoke to oppose the motion all failed to address what the motion is about. The motion is not about our views on the Lisbon Treaty. It is about whether the people should have a say on major constitutional change that will impact on the ability of the Assembly and the national Parliament at Westminster to take decisions and will result in dramatic changes to the roles of those institutions.

The motion is not anti-Europe; it is pro-democracy. The Members who spoke against the motion have not addressed that issue. Are they afraid to allow the people who will be affected by the Lisbon Treaty and the centralisation that it represents to have their say? We do not have a chance to debate whether the terms of the treaty are democratic or anti-democratic because the people of the United Kingdom and the people of Northern Ireland have not even been given an opportunity to examine the issue and make a decision on it.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

The issue is of considerable importance, but, if it is of such fundamental importance to Mr Wilson, why is he a member of a party that, on at least one famous occasion, propped up a Labour Government who have denied the people a referendum on Europe? [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Why did the Member’s party prop up the Government with the famous nine votes?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member will have a minute added to his speaking time.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member is well aware of the difficulties that his party is having with a member who wants to be able to prop up the Labour Government, not just on one occasion but into the future. Indeed, that party is looking for all sorts of ways to push that member to one side and get rid of her. The one thing that I would say — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member has the Floor.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

If the Member is so concerned about that matter, why is he trotting along the Cameron line? The Conservative Party, to which the Member’s party wants to ally itself, promised a referendum, but it is now backing away from that. Indeed, I notice that the amendment makes no commitment on whether there should be a referendum on Europe, despite what Ulster Unionist Party members have said about the treaty and the constitution. That party, too, is backing away from giving a definite answer about whether there should be a referendum.

Mr Maginness said that we should consider what Europe has done for us, but today’s debate is all about examining what the Lisbon Treaty would potentially enable Europe to do to us. The centralisation of power; increases in qualified majority voting; increases in the European Commission’s powers; the powers that the president would have; and the powers of the high commissioner — or whatever fancy name he will have — with regard to foreign policy will all lead to more European-wide decisions. It will be difficult for national Parliaments and national Administrations to oppose those decisions.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

Does the Member not recognise that the Lisbon Treaty will give national Parliaments greater scrutiny of proposed legislation, increase the powers of the European Parliament and provide for judicial reviews by the European Court? Those represent enhancements of democracy.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

One has only to look at the European Parliament, whether in its present form or in the promised enhanced form, to recognise that it is and will continue to be a fairly ineffectual body. It is faced with a Commission that will have more powers and on which some nations will not even be represented any longer. Despite that, the Member tries to argue that the Lisbon Treaty will enhance democracy and lead to more input from national Parliaments.

We could debate the intricacies of the Lisbon Treaty all day, but the fact remains that it is a constitution. It represents 98% of what was in the original EU constitution. No democrat should be afraid to put the treaty to the people, argue its merits, face its critics and let the people decide on it. That is what national sovereignty is about; it is the people who will be affected by the treaty.

Motorcyclists, lorry drivers, bus drivers and farmers are just some of the groups who were affected by European Union decisions when I was Minister of the Environment.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I ask the Member to draw his remarks to a close.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Many people were affected by European decisions over which I, as Minister, and the Assembly had no control. We can do away with that by giving people the opportunity to have a referendum.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. To oppose the Lisbon Treaty is not to be anti-European, which is an insult often hurled at those who oppose it. I strongly suspect that Sinn Féin opposes the Lisbon Treaty for very different reasons from the parties opposite. However, we can all agree on the basic principle that the citizens of Europe have a right to vote on the Lisbon Treaty because it will bring about a fundamental change in the relationship between the European power bloc, the Commission and the citizens of Europe. That, in itself, should ensure the right of citizens to a vote.

The SDLP now opposes the treaty, which I find remarkable. Dominic Bradley, for example, represents south Armagh, which is part of a border constituency.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Just let me finish my point. Dominic Bradley represents a constituency that runs along the Armagh/Louth border. Is it acceptable for a citizen in Louth to have a vote in a referendum but unacceptable for a citizen in Armagh? The SDLP lobbied for a “Yes” vote in Louth; therefore surely it would want the right to lobby for a “Yes” vote in Armagh.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Does the Member accept that, contrary to what he just said, the SDLP is not opposed to the treaty?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I apologise if I said that the SDLP was opposed to the treaty; what I meant to say was that the SDLP is opposed to a referendum. I thank the Member for that intervention.

The shift of power to the Commission under the treaty is alarming. The Commission, not the European Parliament, the Assembly, Westminster or Dáil Éireann, would elect a president, appoint a Minister for foreign affairs and direct European foreign policy. There is no guarantee that the Twenty-six Counties will have a commissioner for all time; its position could be removed.

Alban Maginness’s view that Europe could not go to war or use the European army without a unanimous decision is, in my opinion, deeply flawed. The power blocs in —

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I will let you in in a minute.

In the past, the power blocs in the European Commission used their unhealthy influence to coerce people into making decisions that were not in the interests of their citizens, and they will continue to use that unhealthy influence.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for giving way. Any decision in that area must be unanimous; no decision can be made that is not unanimous. That is in the treaty.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The same democrats who support the Lisbon Treaty and who tell us that it contains safeguards turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the wishes of the citizens of the Twenty-six Counties when they voted against the Lisbon Treaty.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

No.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

They did; there is no change to the Lisbon Treaty whatsoever. Guarantees were given, but no legal amendments were made to it.

Those who say that they are democrats, that decisions will be unanimous and that they will listen to the smaller nations are the same people who told the Dublin Government that the “No” vote was the wrong result and that they should go back and get the right one. The people in the Twenty-six Counties were coerced into voting “Yes”. As Members in the Chamber have been told, the people were told that a “No” vote was anti-European and it let down their European neighbours.

More importantly, citizens of the Twenty-six Counties were told that, if they did not vote “Yes”, the country would be economically crippled. The economy is in bad shape as it is. Are the people who said that the same people who guarantee that they will not go to war or use foreign policy against the wishes of smaller nations? Those people omitted to tell the citizens of the Twenty-six Counties that they had been in charge when the economy went down the pan in the first place and that they had had their hands on the tiller of economic policy and direction.

I have no difficulty with working in co-operation or forming agreements with my European neighbours. Ireland must not be isolationist; we have to work with our European neighbours in a joined-up way that benefits all nations. I want Europe to take a new direction. I want a Europe that is prepared to stand up to countries such as Israel and to have a positive and strong role in bringing forward a Middle East peace settlement. I do not want a Europe that simply sits back and allows Israel to continue with the same policies. I want a Europe that ensures that its economic policies do not undermine or restrict the economic growth of the developing world.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member should bring his remarks to a close.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

There is no point in Europe making lofty statements about bringing poverty to an end. As an economic entity, Europe can help to bring poverty to an end throughout the world.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

The debate centres on the right of UK subjects to express their view on the relationship with the EU and particularly on the Lisbon Treaty, which will further dilute national sovereignty and centralise more power in the EU. As Members have heard, the Assembly endorsed the view that a national referendum should be held to give people a voice. Circumstances have changed since the vote took place in the Irish Republic, but the right of the people in the United Kingdom to speak on such a constitutional change has not.

As with the vote on the Treaty of Nice, the vote in the Irish Republic adhered to the old adage “If at first you don’t succeed; try, try, try again.” Undoubtedly, had the Irish Republic voted “No” a second time, a third referendum would have been held. That should not surprise us because we have become used to that type of European democracy. When France and the Netherlands voted “No” on the constitutional treaty, the treaty’s name was changed. Thus, the opportunity for those countries to have their voice heard on the Lisbon Treaty was circumvented, and the treaty was endorsed through other means.

At least those countries had the opportunity to voice their opposition to the transfer of further power to the European Union. Despite manifesto commitments by the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, the people of the United Kingdom have not had that opportunity. As we have heard, as David Cameron prepares to take over Number 10, he is positioning himself to deny a referendum. Some in his party, such as Daniel Hannan, other MEPs and, indeed, other MPs, take a different view. David Cameron fears a referendum because it would highlight the Euro-sceptic wing in his party and the splits over Europe that he has been trying so hard to cover up.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Does the Member acknowledge that, on 5 March 2008, the Conservative Party tabled an amendment in the House of Commons that called for a referendum but was voted down and that, subsequently, on 11 March 2008, the European Union (Amendment) Bill cleared the House of Commons? Does he further acknowledge that, on 11 June 2008, had the DUP’s nine MPs voted differently, the Government would have fallen and a Conservative Government would now be in power? There would have been a vote, and the people of the United Kingdom would have had the opportunity of a referendum. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member who had the Floor took an intervention. A Member who intervenes must be careful not to turn an intervention into a statement, but that is exactly what Mr McCrea did. The Member may carry on.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Mr McCrea became extremely excited for a moment. Perhaps his time would be better spent asking his party colleague or indeed his entire party’s representation in the House Commons over the past few years how they voted on a number of issues and how many times they propped up the Labour Government. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us be absolutely clear: everybody who wants to speak in the debate will have the opportunity to do so. However, the Member has the Floor, and other Members should allow him to continue.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The hysterical reaction from Mr McCrea illustrates how vulnerable he and his party feel about the issue. Does he accept that the vote to which he referred, which concerned terrorists and whether there should be a detention period of 42 days, would not have brought down the Government and had nothing to do with the issue?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us be absolutely clear: I will not allow interventions to become political statements. I will not allow that to happen in the House.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I totally agree with my colleague. The Ulster Unionist Party increasingly finds itself in difficult positions when it answers questions about its relationship with the Conservative Party. The fact remains that the two major parties in the House of Commons are scared to have a referendum because of what the result would be.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I will not give way. Too much of my time has already gone.

The people of the United Kingdom deserve their say about our relationship with Europe. Earlier, we heard about the many EU laws and directives that we can do nothing about. Such laws and directives are presented to Members at Committee meetings, but we have no chance to amend them or vote against them. We have experienced that in Northern Ireland because, for so long under direct rule, decisions were made at Westminster through Orders in Council. There was no opportunity for us to debate or amend those decisions, so we know all about the democratic deficit.

The people of the UK were promised that the EU was about a common market and free trade, but of course it was not. Over the years, the EU has accumulated power through various treaties and is becoming closer to the federal state that we all fear.

The Lisbon Treaty is almost identical to the constitutional treaty, and it will create two positions. We remember the famous speech by Mr William Hague in the House of Commons in which he described Gordon’s nightmare: Gordon Brown hung on for so long waiting for Tony Blair to stand aside, only for Tony Blair to now have the opportunity to become the president of Europe. The treaty will also create the position of a high representative for foreign affairs, which is a foreign secretary in all but name. Foreign secretaries are required for nation states but not for the type of arrangement that the EU is meant to be. However, the EU is increasingly becoming a union of European citizens rather than a union of member states; we should be afraid of that. We even saw President Barroso pointing to the European flag and saying that that was the flag of his country. That tells us an awful lot about what Europe is becoming.

We also heard about the further centralisation of power in Brussels and how parts of our vetoes are being eroded. Therefore, for an issue as significant as the Lisbon Treaty, it is important that people in the United Kingdom have an opportunity to speak and have a serious debate about the role that the United Kingdom plays in an ever more powerful EU.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. As Question Time will commence at 3.00 pm, I suggest that the House takes its ease until that time. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Danny Kinahan.

The debate stood suspended.

Culture, Arts and Leisure

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

1. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure if his Department will direct the Arts Council to deny funding to bands which participate in parades commemorating loyalist paramilitaries. (AQO 259/10)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

My Department is committed to promoting equality of opportunity and good relations. Any organisation that receives funding from my Department and its arm’s-length bodies must comply with the equality and good relations policies of the relevant funding organisations. Any body that does not do so is not eligible for funding.

The Arts Council’s musical instruments for bands scheme and its small grants programme provide funding to bands for musical tuition costs and instruments. All bands that receive funding are required to comply fully with the Arts Council’s commitment to equality of opportunity and good relations. The Arts Council has advised that it does not fund or support any bands that do not comply with that requirement.

For both funding programmes, the council checks individual band websites to ensure that there is no evidence of any content that would breach the equality and good relations commitments.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle agus a Aire. Given the Minister’s answer, is he willing to enquire whether confidence is lost by allowing some loyalist bands that march past nationalist communities every year to commemorate what I would call loyalist paramilitaries? If he does not, people from my community, who have very little confidence in the Minister, will lose what little they had.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I made it clear that the position was that all bands are required to comply fully with the Arts Council’s equality of opportunity and good relations commitments. The council has looked into the matter and has advised that it does not fund or support any bands that do not comply with that requirement.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

There is obviously a list of bands — the Minister referred to it — that have received Arts Council funding. Does the Minister know whether the Arts Council holds a list of bands that participate in parades?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

There is no single list that notes the bands that participate in parades. That would be the case for loyalist and nationalist or republican parades. A band may say in its application that, as part of its contribution to the community, it participates in community events. However, I do not think that any list of bands that participate in parades exists.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Has the Arts Council ever rejected an application for funding for a band on the grounds that it had links with a paramilitary organisation?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

As part of the assessment process, the Arts Council examines entries on a band’s website and details of its activities. If the council considers that a band has contravened the necessary good relations commitment, which, as I said, is a condition for funding, that application would be rejected. The Arts Council would not accept further applications from such a band until there was satisfactory evidence of a shift in attitude to the good relations commitment and a change in the website’s content.

On the basis of contravening the good relations commitment, the Arts Council rejected two applications from bands in the recent funding round in the musical instruments for bands scheme. The council wrote to both bands to outline the reasons for rejection.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

2. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure if ‘Places for Sport’ funding will be available in the 2010-11 financial year. (AQO 260/10)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

It is planned that £2·13 million will be provided for Places for Sport in 2010 and 2011. That is additional to the planned allocation for the current financial year of £6·35 million and an actual allocation for the previous financial year of £1·62 million. That gives an approximate total allocation of £10·1 million over the period 2008-2011.

That represents a significant investment by my Department in facilities across Northern Ireland. The £2·13 million planned allocation for 2010-2011 relates to awards that are anticipated to be made later this year for a phase of the programme for which applications closed in June 2009.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Minister’s Department provide the maximum possible support for the Edendork GAC in County Tyrone, which needs help to replace the clubhouse that was burned down in an arson attack in November 2008?

I shall also take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether funds are available to repair the recently vandalised facilities at the Mary Peters track.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member asked whether financial support is available for a particular club. I outlined the funding that has been allocated to the scheme, which is open to all clubs for applications, all of which, I am sure, will be treated fairly and properly. However, I cannot comment on funding for a particular club, so there the matter must rest.

The Mary Peters track is owned by Belfast City Council, to which questions about how it intends to deal with the damage should be addressed. The council may have insurance cover for the facility, so it should look into that. The Member should also be aware that the council intends to carry out a more comprehensive refurbishment of the Mary Peters track.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

How many applications failed to be approved by the scheme due to late submission?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I do not have that information to hand, but I will endeavour to respond to the Member in due course.

Wallace (DUP, Belfast East)

What benefits will the investment of public funds in sporting programmes and facilities bring before, during and after the London Olympics in 2012?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The investment of public funds in the elite facilities programme will provide a legacy of world-class sports facilities for use by the Northern Ireland community both at performance and grass-roots level, including by schoolchildren. The programme is about creating a facility, performance and participation legacy for Northern Ireland beyond 2012 that will also cover key gaps in facility provision across the sports infrastructure and that will significantly contribute to delivering the strategy for sport and physical recreation.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 3 has been withdrawn.

Dawn Purvis (PUP, Belfast East)

4. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what steps he is taking to ensure that Linfield Football Club is not given an unfair financial advantage as a result of the redevelopment of Windsor Park. (AQO 262/10)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

It has been made absolutely clear to both the IFA and Linfield Football Club that any development at Windsor Park that involves significant public expenditure is conditional on the contractual arrangements being agreed to the satisfaction of all concerned, and, wherever possible, my Department will facilitate that process. The issue will also feature prominently in the outline business case for regional stadia development that has been commissioned by Sport NI. It is vital that any new contractual arrangements that are put in place provide a sustainable long-term future for international football in Northern Ireland. As far as the commercial arrangement between the IFA and Linfield Football Club is concerned, the IFA is, in the first instance, responsible for addressing the concerns of the other football clubs, and I anticipate that that, too, will be a factor when re-examining the present contract arrangements.

Dawn Purvis (PUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his response. Is he confident that no unfair financial advantage will be given to Linfield Football Club in the ongoing discussions on contractual arrangements between that club and the IFA?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I said that the arrangement reached has to be fair, acceptable and to the satisfaction of all concerned. I look forward to receiving the consultants’ report in due course, and I will look at it very carefully. I hope that the report will be made before the end of the year so that we can make an initial approach to the Executive.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

What is the position in relation to the provision of a stadium for the three sports?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

As I outlined during questions for oral answer last month, my predecessor earlier this year asked the three governing bodies of the sports involved to submit their preferred options on regional stadium provision. In June 2009, the Executive received an update on stadium development and a broad outline of the options submitted and agreed the process for advancing regional stadium development.

Since taking office, I have actively encouraged that process and I have met representatives of the governing bodies. A strategic outline case confirming the options to be tested in a full economic appraisal has been produced and has been approved by DFP. Consultants have been appointed recently to undertake an economic appraisal of the options. As I indicated, I expect to be able to return to the Executive before the end of the year with the outcome and proposals to take forward the strategic development of regional sports stadiums.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I remind Members to switch off their mobile phones, which affect the recording system in the Chamber. Once again, I remind Members to rise continually in their places. The key word is “continually”.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the Minister reassure Members that the distribution of grants to football clubs will be balanced geographically and will include football clubs that do not play in the Irish League: I mean Derry City Football Club.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I made a useful visit to Fermanagh recently and viewed facilities at Ballinamallard United Football Club. I was most impressed by the good work that goes on there, not only with the main teams, but with the youth and, Members will be glad to hear, several ladies football teams.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

So that’s why you were there. [Laughter].

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I assure Members that no football teams were playing on the day when I visited. David McNarry must be greatly disappointed.

It is important that a fair and equitable spread of resources across the Province is achieved, not just geographically, but at all levels and across all sports. A conversation about this is taking place with Sport NI. Members should be reassured that that is indeed the case.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Minister confirm that the decision to proceed with the investment at Windsor Park was equality-impact assessed? If not, what consideration did he give before allocating the resources to make investment available for health and safety work by the other two sports at Ravenhill and Casement Park?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Some time ago, the Executive decided to look at the needs of the three sports. That decision was made during my predecessor’s term as Minister. When I took over, I engaged immediately with all three sports at the same time and at the one meeting. I said to them that I wanted their proposals, and they have each presented them. I am pursuing that, and I am pressing forward as quickly as possible.

The point that all three governing bodies expressed most emphatically was that they did not want any delay; they were simply concerned that the matter be progressed as quickly as possible. That is why I indicated that we would have something back before the end of the year.

Any assessments would have been made earlier, but we were past that point. The Executive decided earlier in the year to proceed in that way.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

5. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure for his assessment of the budget and timescale for the refurbishment of the Ulster Museum. (AQO 263/10)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Ulster Museum will reopen on 22 October 2009, with an additional 1,225 sq m of gallery space. That increases the public areas by more than 10%.

The overall budget for the project is £17·2 million, which is made up of the following contributions: £11·2 million from the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure; £4·7 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund, which is the largest Heritage Lottery Fund grant to be awarded to a project in Northern Ireland to date; and £1·3 million from trusts, private grants and donations, including a £500,000 donation from private individuals in the USA.

The removal and storage of the collections from the museum, together with the construction and fit out, has taken three years to complete. When the public come to see the end product of the refurbishment, I am sure that they will appreciate that the project has been time and money well spent.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his response. Can he advise whether a value for money assessment has been carried out on the deployment of museum staff over those three years?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The period that the project has lasted has been a very difficult time for the museum staff, who were endeavouring to do what they could. The other two sites at Cultra and Omagh were open during that time. There were difficulties regarding the staff at the Ulster Museum, and most were relocated to Cultra at various times. They were also involved in the development of the new museum.

The Member asked whether a value for money study was carried out. That is the sort of thing that might have been done at an earlier stage. As I indicated earlier, I arrived at the Department at the beginning of July 2009, at which point the project’s completion was only a few months away. The museum reopens on Thursday. I have every confidence that the management in National Museums Northern Ireland ensured that staff were deployed properly and that the refurbishment was carried out to the best of its ability, making the maximum use of staff. However, I can enquire further into whether a study was carried out.

There can be a tendency in our country to spend a great deal of time, resources and money on asking consultants and experts to do all sorts of studies. I would prefer that we devote staff, money and resources to front line services to ensure that, as in this case, we get the best outcome. The museum has a very important role to play in the cultural infrastructure of Northern Ireland.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Will the Minister tell us how the timescale and budget of the project to refurbish the Ulster Museum compares with similar projects in the rest of the UK?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

National Museums Northern Ireland has sought to maximise the benefits and opportunities that the project presented throughout its five-year life cycle. Consequently, the project has expanded to provide maximum value for money for stakeholders and the public. Additional work has included the construction of a new applied art gallery, which was not in the original concept. The project has released an additional 1,200 sq m of public space. The Ulster Museum project compares favourably with other national museums’ projects in its quality of build, exhibition fit out and value for money. Those other projects include one worked on by National Museums Liverpool at a cost of £72 million and National Museums Scotland’s £46 million Royal Museum project in Edinburgh, which is due to open in 2011.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

The Minister will be aware that Northern Ireland is awash with visitors and tourists, and we welcome that. However, following the investment of £17 million into the refurbishment of the Ulster Museum, it is to close on Mondays. How will visitors to Belfast be accommodated on Mondays if all the museums are closed?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

National Museums Northern Ireland has been reviewing how best to support tourism, learning and community engagement. With that in mind, National Museums Northern Ireland has introduced revised opening hours to ensure that its services are aligned more closely with the needs and expectations of visitors. After it reopens at the end of October, the Ulster Museum will be open to the public from 10.00 am to 5.00 pm on Saturdays and Sundays. Before the investment was made, the museum was closed on Saturday and Sunday mornings and open only in the afternoons.

Recent market research has shown that more than 70% of people prefer to visit a museum on a Saturday or a Sunday; only 3% cited Monday as the preferred day for a visit. That figure might not please Mr McCarthy, but it is the result of market research that was carried out by National Museums Northern Ireland.

National Museums Northern Ireland will keep its opening hours under review, ensuring that it continues to respond to visitor demands and expectations, and the revised opening hours will be implemented across its estate. Opening hours is an operational matter for the trustees of National Museums Northern Ireland.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

6. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what efficiency savings the North/South bodies, which are under his Department’s remit, will be implementing this year. (AQO 264/10)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland and the Department of Finance in the Irish Republic have agreed guidance on the delivery of efficiency savings, which will affect Waterways Ireland and the North/South Language Body, which are in my remit. The bodies will be required to achieve a minimum of 3% per annum cumulative cash-releasing efficiencies in 2009 and 2010. The baseline figures to be used will be the indicative budgets for 2009, which were established at the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) meetings in language body sectoral format and in inland waterways sectoral format on 16 January 2009. The bodies will also be required to develop an initial review process, which will encourage efficiency savings on a continual basis. Savings will be removed from the budget grants to the bodies, resulting in reductions in the contributions from Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic in line with funding ratios.

The bodies are redrafting their 2009 business plans in line with the agreed efficiency guidance. They will be forwarded to the sponsor Departments for clearance by DCAL and DFP Ministers in advance of business plans being presented for approval at a future NSMC meeting. The Department will also wish to consider any scope for efficiencies in discharging its sponsorship role.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I welcome the Minister’s answer and the news that there will be efficiency savings in “North/Southery”. Will the Minister detail any plans for savings that he has implemented and changes that he has made in respect of North/South bodies and ministerial meetings over which he has control?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

My predecessor, Gregory Campbell, reduced the cost of meetings by holding the NSMC meetings in language body sectoral format and in inland waterways sectoral format on one day and in one place, thereby reducing the cost of travel and accommodation and making a more efficient use of the time of Ministers and officials. I intend to continue that process and hold the two meetings consecutively on one day and in the same place.

I also intend to reduce costs as far as possible when hosting the NSMC meetings. For example, the next meetings will be held in December in my offices in Belfast, and I intend to use departmental premises to hold future meetings, because there is no need to hire plush premises or to put on extravagant lunches. In future, we may even take matters a stage further. There may be some instances where videoconferencing could be used to do business, and that would save on time and on travel costs. Therefore, things can be done, and the Department will seek to do what it can in that regard.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

Is the Minister not tempted to sow confusion in the minds of all those who harbour doubts about him and his ability as a Minister, by cutting through the fog and endorsing the proposal for an all-Ireland arts council? That would save money, it would be a non-threatening way of doing arts business on this island and —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member should come to his question.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

My question is about saving money, Mr Speaker. The creation of that arts council would define the Minister, in this part of the world, as a visionary rather than as some people portray him.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Mr Attwood has been a bit slow on the uptake. He has not grasped the fact that the Executive’s vision — as set out in the Programme for Government, which was signed up to by all the political parties — is to create “a shared and better future” in Northern Ireland. We must get that right in Northern Ireland. In doing so, it is important that we recognise that Northern Ireland’s cultural links with Scotland, England and Wales are just as strong as those with the Irish Republic.

I recently took the opportunity of travelling to Edinburgh to meet my corresponding colleagues in the Scottish Government, and the folk there — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Minister has the Floor. Allow him to answer.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I travelled to Scotland to meet the Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture and the Minister for Public Health and Sport, to begin a process of developing those east-west links. The scenario that Mr Attwood set out does not recognise or reflect the complexity and nature of cultural diversity in Northern Ireland. He seems to be very insular — that is a good word — in his approach. On this side of the Chamber, we approach things in a much more broad-minded manner.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Minister states that he has been involved in cost-cutting measures with respect to where he will hold future North/South Ministerial Council meetings. However, he could hold meetings in the bus shelter at the bottom of the hill, but he must still hold those meetings. He is involved in the North/South Ministerial Council, and he cannot get away from that fact.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

As yet, I have not considered the possibility of using bus shelters to hold meetings. However, I think that we will settle for the comfort of the DCAL offices in Belfast, which are very satisfactory.

The DUP’s position has always been that there is opportunity and benefit in having good relationships with our neighbours in other countries. Therefore, meeting, from time to time, to discuss matters of mutual interest — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

It seems that some have not grasped the fact that God gave us one mouth and two ears. It is good to listen, and I suggest that Mr O’Dowd should listen more and say a little bit less: he might learn something.

It is good to have the opportunity to meet with folk from the Irish Republic and to do things that are of mutual benefit, just as it good to meet with our colleagues in the other parts of the United Kingdom, of which we are an integral part.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

7. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure how he determines the proportion of funding to be given to the development of Ulster-Scots language and culture. (AQO 265/10)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The proportionality or ratio of funding that is provided by Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic for the North/South Language Body, which comprises the Ulster-Scots Agency and Foras na Gaeilge, was agreed when that body was established, on the basis of the assessed benefit to each country from the activities of each body. Currently, my Department funds 75% of the budget of the Ulster-Scots Agency and 25% of the budget of Foras na Gaeilge.

Private Members’ Business

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I look forward to speaking on the serious subject of the Lisbon Treaty referendum. I support the Ulster Unionist Party’s amendment, which proposes to rescind the treaty and hold a referendum. If the public are watching, many will be extremely muddled as to who is for Europe and who is against it.

The motion is muddled in that it looks for a binding promise that we cannot give on an issue that we may not be able to deliver. ‘The Economist’ has stated that the Lisbon Treaty had made Europe too complicated and that it is difficult for all of us to understand. The Ulster Unionist Party is pro-Europe, most Members are pro-Europe to varying degrees, and most Members support a referendum. The Ulster Unionist Party is for Europe, and I will point out what Europe has done for us. It has brought together 27 very different countries, which has been an enormous success; it has helped struggling nations; and it has opened discussions on the issue of climate change and introduced environmental legislation that the House may not even have considered, given that one corner of the House does not believe in global warming.

Nevertheless, the Lisbon Treaty may take away our sovereignty and part of our history, of which we are very proud. The European Union is complicated, and it is becoming too big and too expensive.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

Does the Member agree that the anti-European or Euro-sceptic views that have been expressed by some Members are to be regretted? We should be at the heart of, and show our wholehearted support for, Europe, which the Member has just done.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member has an extra minute.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you. I look forward to an extra minute.

I do not agree fully with the Member. In varying degrees, we are all for Europe. ‘The Economist’ has stated that politics is local and that economics is global. We joined Europe for economic reasons, and we want that to continue. However, we want Europe to have less influence in our politics.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

No. If I may, I would like to keep going.

The Lisbon Treaty may take all of that away. Recently, I was lucky enough to visit Brussels, where, in one of the many meetings that I attended, it was explained that, if we want to influence European legislation, we need to look at it two years before it is introduced. Once it is introduced, there is very little that we can do about it. The UK must not throw away its influence with the Commonwealth and its special relationship with America. Europe has been weak in certain areas, particularly in defence. Remember Rwanda, when Europe stood by and did absolutely nothing. A referendum is needed.

The motion refers to parties that have aspirations. That is a reference to the UUP, which is not part of the sideshow or of little Ulster. We want to have influence through our link with the Conservative Party, and we want to be with it in influencing what happens in Europe and what happens here. We are proud of the Union, and we are ready for change.

The Ulster Unionist Party wants a referendum for two reasons. First, the public must have their chance and their say. We must all educate the public on European issues and on where we are going. Secondly, a referendum is needed so that Europe knows exactly where the UK stands.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I thank all the Members who have taken depart in the debate, because I think it is very useful. Although some are suggesting that it is merely about a referendum, I have not missed — I do not think anybody could miss — the anti-European undertone of most of those who are proposing that there should be a referendum. It is a referendum with a view to undermining our commitment to Europe, and, indeed, undermining the commitment of Europe to us.

We in the SDLP have never been uncritical supporters of the European Union, but we examine each situation that arises rationally and on its merits. Over many years, I have repeatedly drawn the conclusion that the European Union as a whole, and European integration generally, works in our best interests. The simple — maybe too simple — illustration of that is the fact that over €1·65 billion, around £1·5 billion, has been invested in Northern Ireland from the European Union via the peace and reconciliation funds. That funding has, without question, provided a vital lifeline in Northern Ireland and the border counties of the Republic.

The European Union continues to prove that it is essential for securing and promoting jobs, the development of tourism, and the protection of our agriculture sector. Although things can sometimes be bad when we are inside, and working with, the European Union, they would be an awful lot worse if we were outside.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for giving way. Although the Member mentioned how good Europe has been for the farming industry, it has not been equally as good for the fishing industry. That industry is one of the poor relations, with all the regulations that come from Europe, and the so-called scientific evidence that results in restricting the days at sea and restricting quotas. Does the Member accept that the European Union is not helping the fishing industry? Indeed, if anything, it is killing it.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I thank my colleague for reminding me. Fishing is one of the issues that I was thinking of when I said that the SDLP had never been uncritical. Seas have been overfished and overworked, and the European Union has tried to curtail fishing, and sometimes to conserve fishing. Had it not been for some of the conservation — and I feel uncomfortable about it — many of the stocks of fish would have been wiped out. However, it is a concern that the fishing industry has been squeezed again and again. It is not so much a European problem as a global problem. There is overfishing, and one of these days, there will be very few fish left; they will become harder to find.

I am suggesting that Europe has been, and continues to be, good to us, with our infrastructure and community development funded from Brussels. It has continued to be good to us through key infrastructure investments such as the Kelvin project, which will ensure that at least eight towns in Northern Ireland and five just south of the border acquire the fastest telecoms connection to North America from anywhere in Europe. That new infrastructure will help us to attract international business and give us a much better trading platform. In many ways, it may have helped to create the atmosphere for the jobs announcement that we heard earlier this week.

Through the reforms of the Lisbon Treaty, Europe can be even better for us in the future. I am at a loss to understand why there is an intrinsic hostility to Europe espoused by many in the DUP and Sinn Féin, and, indeed, the Ulster Unionist Party. It strikes me as a paranoid view that one cannot trust foreigners.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Perhaps I have missed the point, but surely the essence of the motion is that it is not the DUP’s view. The motion calls for the public to be given an opportunity to have a view; it does not necessarily force the view of the proposers upon others.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Maybe I will get to that in a second. Our suspicion of foreigners is unhealthy. It is wise to be sensible and cautious, but we can sometimes be too cautious.

The Lisbon Treaty is an attempt to bring the institutions of Europe out of the 1970s, when they were set up to manage 15 states, and into the twenty-first century, when the European Union comprises 27 states. I warmly welcome a union of 27 states, because, like a lot of Members, I did not like the concepts of the Iron Curtain and of Eastern Europe under the jackboot of Russia. We had an obligation to help those states, and I am glad that the European Union has taken them on board.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member must draw his remarks to a close.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Globally and locally, we face unprecedented economic and social challenges. Member states cannot rise and overcome those challenges alone.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Sinn Féin believes that every citizen of the European Union should have a say in such fundamental decisions about how society is run, whether that is in Ireland, Britain, France or Holland. Sinn Féin is not hostile to Europe, as the previous Member who spoke alleged. All politicians, elected representatives and members of the public have a right to scrutinise legislation and to make decisions on legislation such as the Lisbon Treaty. It is unhealthy for democracy and democratic debate that some parties adopt a carte blanche approach to any legislation that comes out of Europe. The treaty is not about staying in Europe or about economic investment, and some Members must recognise that.

The European Union will advance towards common foreign policies. Funding will increase for a European defence agency, there will be an EU Foreign Minister, and military alliances will be formed to carry out common foreign and defence initiatives. Those are facts, and that goes above and beyond the peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance that is already taking place.

Lisbon II was not a referendum on whether the Twenty-six Counties should stay in the European Union. It was not a referendum on job creation, as some in the Government alleged. The treaty contains nothing that will incentivise investment or stimulate growth. Ironically, the economic policies that the Lisbon Treaty promotes are exactly the same policies that drove us into the current economic crisis.

For the past 20 years, the European Union has pushed a right-wing economic agenda, promoting deregulation and liberalisation. It has aggressively promoted competition in all areas of the economy, including in public services. The European Union has weakened the ability of the state to manage the economy, leading to privatisation and inequality.

Much is revealed by an interesting quote from the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (IBEC). It told the National Forum on Europe that the treaty:

“creates the legal basis for the liberalisation of services of general economic interest (Art. 106). A yes vote for the Lisbon Treaty creates the potential for increased opportunities for Irish business particularly in areas subject to increasing liberalisation such as Health, Education”.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Will the Member agree that the Lisbon Treaty will affect 60 important areas, including policing, the army, justice, the finance system and employment? The treaty will make life easier for criminals. Will the Member agree that the people of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom should have the right to vote on it and to say no to it?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I agree that everyone has the right to vote on issues that are as fundamental as that. It affects a wide range of issues, which must be addressed.

Public services, such as healthcare and education, will, under article 16 of the Lisbon Treaty, be subject to new economic and financial conditions. Healthcare and education will be subject to further privatisation, and, in turn, greater levels of inequality. We do not wish to see a united states of Europe.

We do not want to go down the same road as the United States, not only with regard to foreign policy and a unified army, but on critical issues such as health and education. We are aware of the gross health inequalities in the United States. There is little wonder that politicians such as Silvio Berlusconi have backed the Lisbon Treaty. It is fundamentally a right-wing treaty that will do nothing for Irish people’s quality of life.

SDLP member Alban Maginness suggested that a number of changes to the Lisbon Treaty were secured. That is just wrong: not one word of the treaty was changed between Lisbon I and Lisbon II. He said that a number of guarantees were secured by the Irish Government. In saying that, does he not recognise that Lisbon I was wrong in the first place and that Sinn Féin was, therefore, right to lobby for a “No” vote?

He talks about enhanced democracy. Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty gives the European Union power to amend treaties without referenda. Clearly, therefore, it takes away from the democratic agenda. As regards nuclear power — an issue that SDLP members allege is close to their hearts — the Lisbon Treaty again reaffirms and mandates the European Union to promote nuclear energy.

All in all, Cheann Comhairle, I thank the Members who brought the motion to the House. It is important that the House debate European issues. It does not do so often enough. The European Union has a great deal of power to set legislation that affects members of the public on the island. We must ensure that our voices are heard and that the views of the people of Europe are heard on fundamental changes to legislation. I support the motion.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Why are there concerns about the Lisbon Treaty? If the treaty is enacted throughout Europe, the European community will change. UK citizens will no longer determine their own future. It will frequently be decided by others.

My colleague Danny Kinahan quoted ‘The Economist’; he said, rightly, that politics are local and economics are global. How true that statement is. The European Economic Community will become a political union. It will not be local. There will not be local politics. Decisions will be made remotely and will be unaccountable.

At present, European decisions must have the approval of the democratically elected Government in the European Council, or of the European Parliament. In future, a wide range of decisions will be made by the new proportionality voting system. Gregory Campbell, rightly, highlighted that as the fundamental shift that comes with the Lisbon Treaty. That means that other people can impose laws on us that do not have the British people’s support.

We are expected to be content that the Parliament will be consulted for eight weeks, instead of six weeks. Although I respect Alban Maginness’s comments, consultation of merely eight weeks, rather than six, does not improve democratic accountability. I question why the Alliance Party seems to be content with that.

We must ask what the purpose of the motion is as it is originally worded. Is it designed to achieve a particular outcome, or is it merely playing at party politics? It calls for parties to give a commitment to hold a referendum within 12 months of the next Westminster election. Why wait, possibly, up to 18 months? Such a delay could enable ratification of the treaty, to which the proposers claim to object.

My colleague Danny Kennedy indicated that the Ulster Unionist Party has given commitments to hold a referendum prior to the ratification of the treaty. That is what my party wishes to do. The proposers of the motion either fail to understand the nature of British parliamentary democracy or EU law, or are being mischievous. The key time is now, not 18 months from now, by which time ratification could have come into effect.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

Does the Member not agree that the DUP put down a motion a year ago that called for a referendum? Therefore, the DUP has been ahead of the game on the issue. My party has been pushing for a referendum — not the Ulster Unionist Party.