Northern Ireland Assembly, 12 October 2010

502 contributions from 70 members. The official report.

Ministerial Statement

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I have received notice from the Minister for Employment and Learning that he wishes to make a statement.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement.

Today’s publication of the independent review of higher education funding and student finance, chaired by Lord Browne of Madingley, represents a significant milestone in the evolution of higher education in the United Kingdom. Our universities have, over centuries, contributed to a culture of learning in the British Isles, shaped our public discourse and increasingly played a significant economic role.

The reforms of the universities in the nineteenth century, particularly the removal of religious tests and the inclusion of women, ensured that higher education was opened up beyond an elite. The creation of new universities in the first decades of the twentieth century and the 1960s greatly contributed to a further opening up of higher education to social groups who previously would not have considered attending a university.

In recent years, we have witnessed a dramatic expansion in our university population. In Northern Ireland, we have achieved the 50% target that was set out by the former Government for university participation among 18-year-olds to 25-year-olds. We also have the highest and best higher education participation rates in the country for those from socially disadvantaged backgrounds, and that is an achievement in which we in this part of the United Kingdom should take great pride.

In 2008-09, 41·7% of Northern Ireland’s young full-time first degree entrants were from socio-economic classes 4 to 7, compared with only 32·4% in England and 28·2% in Scotland. The existing fees regime has not impacted adversely on our participation rates, so far.

That extension of opportunity has greatly benefited our society. However, it brings challenges, which intensify in straitened economic times. As a society, here in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom, we have to ask ourselves how we are to secure investment in higher education and how we will find the right balance between taxpayers’ contributions and those of the individual who benefits from the experience of higher education. Lord Browne’s report will help us to think through that challenge.

Of course, at this early stage, none of us in the House could possibly provide a meaningful, thoughtful response to the 64-page report. It will require careful reading and consideration by the House, the Committee, the Department, Executive colleagues, our universities and other stakeholders, including, of course, the students themselves. I, therefore, welcome the opportunity to update the Assembly on the latest developments on higher education funding and student finance in England and to inform the Assembly of my intentions for moving forward in Northern Ireland on those important issues.

As Members will be aware, the independent review of higher education funding and student finance in England was launched in November 2009. Lord Browne was tasked with making recommendations to the Government on the future of fees policy and financial support for full- and part-time undergraduate and postgraduate students. The review fulfilled the commitment made by the Government during the Commons stages of the Higher Education Act 2004 to review the operation of variable tuition fees after they had been in force for three years. I am glad that Lord Browne’s report has been published and I look forward to considering carefully the detail behind today’s headlines.

Members will recall that I commissioned Joanne Stuart, the chairwoman of the Institute of Directors in Northern Ireland, to carry out an independent review of variable fees and future student finance arrangements in Northern Ireland. I received Joanne’s report in March and have been considering her recommendations. As I indicated at the time, I am grateful for the report and for the time and effort given to the issue by Joanne Stuart and the external steering group that supported the work. The independent report is an important document and is making a key contribution to our deliberations on those issues.

In her report, Joanne Stuart indicated that there would be a need to review her recommendations in light of the output of the Browne review. In order to facilitate and inform debate on the consultation, I have asked Joanne Stuart to update her report in light of Lord Browne’s. That is in keeping with the recommendations of the original report. I am pleased that Joanne has agreed to undertake that. I, therefore, intend to consider Lord Browne’s report in conjunction with Joanne Stuart’s report before bringing forward a public consultation on those very important issues. In advance of the consultation, however, I intend to publish Joanne Stuart’s report today so that everyone has the opportunity to consider it within the context that Lord Browne’s report now provides. It will be published at 2.30 pm and made available on the departmental website.

I referred earlier to the external steering group that supported Joanne Stuart in carrying out the review here. The group and the involvement of the key stakeholders benefited the process, and I want to ensure that we continue to build on the constructive working relationships that were established. To that end, I recently wrote to the members of the previous group to seek nominations to participate on a Department-led stakeholder group during the forthcoming consultation phase to contribute to the development of future student finance policy for Northern Ireland.

As soon as my officials and I have an opportunity to consider the Browne report, along with the recommendations in the Stuart report, we expect to move forward apace with preparations for a consultation in Northern Ireland on those important issues. The first meeting of the stakeholder group will be held in mid-November, which will provide an early opportunity for engagement with key stakeholders on the proposed consultation paper. Officials are also due to brief the Committee for Employment and Learning in late November. I value the role that the Committee will bring to the process, and I look forward to working constructively with it and with the Assembly as we create a long-term strategic plan for the future of our students in Northern Ireland.

I made contact with key stakeholders in the past 24 hours, including the vice chancellors of Queen’s and the University of Ulster, the president of the National Union of Students and the Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning. I value the opportunity to garner initial reactions from those key stakeholders and I hope that the findings of the Browne and Stuart reviews will stimulate a mature, responsible and informed debate on the future funding of higher education in Northern Ireland.

Lord Browne’s report challenges the Assembly and the Executive to consider the way forward for higher education in Northern Ireland. Queen’s University, Belfast and the University of Ulster proudly compete with some of the very best higher education institutions on these islands.

Put simply, for that to continue, ongoing investment will be required. It will also require us, as legislators, and the Executive, to determine the appropriate balance between the contribution from taxpayers and that from the individuals who benefit from higher education.

At a time of grave economic difficulty, cheap words and easy promises from the House would betray the responsibility placed on us to demonstrate real leadership. Northern Ireland now needs to have a mature, responsible debate on the funding of the higher education sector and student finance that will allow a consensus to emerge on securing investment in our universities while protecting and improving our widening participation record.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his statement. As Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning, I make clear that the Committee will take a thorough look at the Browne and Stuart reports and take soundings from all key stakeholders.

I listened carefully to what the Minister said and noted that he has not had much opportunity to digest the recommendations of the Browne report. I hope that when he has had time to consider it, he will come back to the House to make a further statement on how he intends to take some of those matters forward.

Higher education is too significant an economic driver for rash decisions to be made. What does the Minister think the Browne report means for Northern Ireland? Are we in a position to ignore it? Does it contain sufficient protection for the current level of social inclusion at our universities, and what will it mean for widening access?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I am grateful for the Member’s comments. Of course, it will be necessary to come back to the House at an early stage once we have consulted stakeholders and know the comprehensive spending review (CSR) settlement, because, to some extent, those two things have to be read together.

The Member asked what the Browne report means for Northern Ireland, particularly for our widening participation policy, of which the House should be very proud. That is the very question: will there be Barnett consequentials? Although it is perfectly clear that these are devolved matters, we will defend our position, and it is for the Assembly to make any changes that we feel to be appropriate.

Ultimately, our ability will be determined in large measure by how we are financed on this matter. We will not know what the total block grant will be until next week. However, within that, the Executive, the Committee and the House will have to make decisions about what priority will be applied to this area of activity and how we juxtapose that priority with other key areas such as health and education.

Therefore, I say to the Member: no rash decisions will be taken; it is too important a matter for off-the-cuff responses. I repeat what I said in my statement: we will have to have a mature and responsible debate. Let us be frank: it would be very easy in an election year to beat one’s chest and say that we are backing this or that on the basis that they may be populist matters. We will not know the full implications of the Browne report until we read it in the context of the CSR settlement.

We also need to see the reaction of Ministers in London. I understand that we will get some indication of that at 3.30 this afternoon when Ministers make statements. Only when we see all that together will we know how the report will restrict our ability to manoeuvre locally, if it comes to that. However, this is a devolved matter, and I assure the Member that the Committee will play a pivotal role, as it always does on key matters concerning the Department.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for a mature and comprehensive response to a difficult question for Northern Ireland. I want to make three points. Let me build on what we said yesterday. Fairness and quality should be built into our agenda. Fairness to allow socially disadvantaged students to access university education, and in that we lead the rest of the United Kingdom, but also quality to ensure that our universities can compete at the highest level in the British Isles, Europe and the United States.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to come to his question.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Let us remember that the Stuart report was written when house prices in Northern Ireland were going up by £75,000 a year and Lehman Brothers was still trading. Therefore, can the Minister ensure that, in marrying the Browne and Stuart reports, we have a university system fit for purpose that has fairness and quality at its heart?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

In recent years, we have invested heavily in higher education. The worst that can happen is that we squander the gains that have been made. There are people at university today whose families never thought that they would see their children at university. I recall going, as I normally do, to the summer graduation ceremonies for the Step Up students at Jordanstown. I met people from schools in disadvantaged areas and whose families never thought that they would see their children at university. They are there because we have invested in a particular scheme to give direct access to higher education to those from disadvantaged backgrounds. We have the best figures in the UK, not only for total participation of 18-year-olds and younger, first-time undergraduates, but for participation of students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

My Department is writing a strategy to complete the widening access agenda. Even though access has widened and people are going to university who would never have gone before, as I said at Question Time yesterday, there are still significant pockets of under-representation as far as participation in higher education is concerned. Therefore, on the fairness side of the Member’s agenda, I can tell him that the Department remains fully committed. It would be entirely wrong to squander the gains that have been made. We have made progress, but we have not completed the journey.

As far as quality is concerned, our universities and university colleges have an excellent record. Look at last year’s research assessment exercise (RAE) ratings: both our universities moved well up the ladder, with very significant levels of world-class research. Both are well within the top 50, out of the 189 universities in the United Kingdom. In those circumstances, having invested so much revenue and capital, there is little value, from the point of view of quality and fairness, in squandering that.

If this is the sort of template within which the discussion is going to take place, I am more than happy, because those are two key areas. I add a third area: the relevance of the universities to the economy. Those are the areas where we have to have this debate. We do not have all the facts at our disposal. I want to thank the team in my Department, which started to prepare some of this information at 7.30 am. Debate on this in the House will have to be informed by those three things: fairness, quality and the relevance of what we do in higher education to economic development.

Paul Butler (Sinn Féin, Lagan Valley)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. I take it from what he says that he is in favour of lifting the cap on tuition fees and putting people who want third-level education deeper into debt. The Minister has referred to Joanne Stuart’s report, and I know that he is going to publish it today. What recommendations did it make as regards the cap on tuition fees? Did the report recommend lifting it? How will he explain to the many students and graduates, as well as their families, that they will be picking up a huge bill of debt for the next 30 years if the Browne report is implemented here in the North of Ireland?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

First, the Member is correct to say that universities are about more than fees. I personally take what may be an old-fashioned view of universities in that I do not see them as degree factories; I see them as places of learning, where people get together to have their learning experience and capabilities expanded. Universities widen horizons.

Nevertheless, universities are very expensive places. In broad terms, and to put it in context, we spend over £500 million a year on our universities in Northern Ireland. The bulk of that — £288 million — goes on student support. Therefore, more goes on student support than in block grants to universities. It is important that Members understand that. Having said that, however, it was obvious that, in the context of the ongoing review, we would not be able to ignore an area with such expenditure. I have had two conversations over the past couple of months with the Finance Minister, including one the week before last, where these issues have been discussed. There were no circumstances in which higher education would get a complete bye ball in the spending review.

As I said in my answer to the previous question, we have things that we have to protect. Members will see later today that the thrust of Joanne Stuart’s report is that the present level of fees should, by and large, remain as they are, with some caveats. However, as Mr Bell indicated, that report was largely compiled last year, and, of course, circumstances have changed. The Government have changed, as has the whole public finance situation. Joanne Stuart anticipated that, as Members will see when they have a chance to study her report. She clearly states that she will want to look at her recommendations in the light of what Browne comes up with. However, even Browne’s report was amended; I believe that he was given further instructions over the summer to include other issues.

There is a significant difference in approach between Joanne Stuart’s report and the Browne report, and it will be for Members to compare and contrast them. However, Joanne Stuart anticipated that, and she will update Members and the report in the coming weeks in light of what has happened. I presume that we will also have the benefit, whether that is good, bad or indifferent, of knowing what financial effects will flow from the Barnett consequentials of the matter.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister and congratulate him on his statement. Does he agree that it is not a sustainable way forward for higher education in Northern Ireland to pretend that changes in funding to universities in England have no implications for this part of the United Kingdom?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Member catches the point entirely. This is Browne’s report, but do not forget that it is nothing more than a report at the moment. We will have some indications about the matter later today when Ministers in London give their initial reactions to it. What will those reactions be? We should not forget that the report would have to be translated into decisions by Parliament. Therefore, there is a political aspect to the issue to be considered. As we know, the Opposition in London are now in favour of a graduate tax, even though it was the Opposition party that introduced fees in the first place. Indeed, I would point out that it did so against the wishes of every party in this House.

The fact remains that two things mean that we cannot and will not be allowed to ignore the implications of what happens in London. First, as I said yesterday, in answer to a question from, I think, Mr McCrea, Revenue and Customs is not prepared to introduce a system in Northern Ireland for collecting student loans that is separate to that which applies elsewhere.

I wrote to Revenue and Customs to ask whether we could raise our threshold for repayments, but that was ruled out simply because Revenue and Customs was not prepared to have a two-tier system. I think that we would all be pleased if the threshold for loan repayments were raised. Indeed, a number of Members wrote to me about that issue over the past year. Therefore, I fully appreciate that a raising of the threshold is something with which Members would be content. However, if there is significant change to the block grant as a result of the report’s proposals and decisions that Ministers may take, the Executive will not be able to ignore all that but will have to consider it. Ultimately, the House will have to vote on a Budget, assuming that one comes forward, that will determine the priorities that we place on all those matters. We cannot take any one of them in isolation.

In the next few months, the House will have some very difficult decisions to make. As I said previously, I hope that we are able to rise above party politics, because we are taking about the future of another generation of young people. They are the seedcorn of our future economic prosperity. We have to see things in that context.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I am glad that the House recognised that higher education changes lives and life chances and that it is a key economic driver for us as we try to get out of recession. Will the Minister give his initial reflections on the reaction that he has received from some of the key stakeholders, such as the vice chancellors and student representatives?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The vice chancellors and students are obviously concerned. To put it in context, I liken the report and its potential consequences for higher education to what the Education Act (Northern Ireland) 1947 did for basic education. This is major stuff; it is probably the biggest proposed change for universities since the nineteenth century. The implications are that the block grant system, which provides around 40%, 41% or 42% of university funding in Northern Ireland, will be replaced by a system in which the money follows the student. In other words, universities will have to compete to get students through the door, because that is from where their main source of revenue will come.

We pay roughly £210 million in various grants to our universities. That would be replaced by fees. Therefore, the Government would step back and would lose its influence and ability to shape policy. That would allow for a free market to operate in higher education. That is a very different proposition to the system to which we are accustomed.

Think of the implications: the universities’ main source of revenue will become their students. Universities would, of course, continue to receive money from third parties, the private sector and philanthropic bodies, but the Government’s role would be to step back and allow, effectively, a free market in higher education. That is a very different proposition. It would work if the universities were to succeed and do well, but what would happen if one of them were to falter? Those are the sort of issues that we will have to address.

This is very big stuff. It is hard, in the very short time that we have had, to absorb some of the information, but it is very significant. The report indicates that we will raise the threshold, that any balance after 30 years of fees — it is currently 25 years — will be written off and that repayments will stop if earnings dip below £21,000.

We know that protections are built in. Indeed, an increase in students is recommended, although that is in England; we have already reached those targets. However, I say to the Member that this is big stuff, and it would be wrong of us to rush to any quick decisions. Students who have been studying the review are concerned that its recommendations may become a barrier to widening participation by saddling people with debts of at least £20,000 in fees alone, excluding living costs.

Another interesting aspect of the review is that there would be one point of application. Currently, people apply to UCAS for a university place and apply separately to a different location for their finance. The proposal is to bring that process together in one place. The proposed changes are radical, and we will have to take time to consider them.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I, too, thank the Minister for his statement. Given that Northern Ireland has achieved 50% of 18- to 25-year-olds attending university, will the Minister assure the House that we will continue to lead other parts of the United Kingdom in offering more places to socially disadvantaged students?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I will repeat to the Member for Upper Bann what I said in response to a previous question: it would be a terrible shame to lose the gains and the ground that we have made through the investment of public money and the tremendous effort of our universities and students. The Department for Employment and Learning has put an additional 21% of revenue into universities in the past five years. Universities have been permitted to keep all the fee income that they received, which runs to around £80 million a year. Universities have also increased their income from third-party sources, such as the private sector and philanthropic bodies. That is why they are performing so well, moving up the league tables and attracting more students.

As a net exporter of students, Northern Ireland is a unique region, a matter raised by Member after Member right around the House for years. At any time, at least a quarter of our students are at universities elsewhere; most in Great Britain, some in the Republic. Is the Member asking me what the implication is if, suddenly, people must acquire debts running into £25,000, £28,000 or £30,000 that they will have to start repaying? That is equivalent to mortgages that many of us would have taken out earlier in our life, and it is a huge undertaking. I think that the Member is raising the question of whether that will be a tipping point for students who might say that they cannot afford to take such a risk. Those are arguments that we must have. Because university funding is very expensive, there are no easy options. As I said, it accounts for 55% to 60% of my Department’s budget, which amounts to more than £500 million a year. It is big stuff, and do not forget that many students are beginning to study for their degree at our further education colleges as well. That is a very positive growth area that we are encouraging.

The Member has asked the two key questions that the House will have to address in the coming months. I hope that the answer to those questions will be that, no matter what our differences may be on other political issues, we are not prepared to sacrifice the gains that we have made and that we will work our way round that. However, that is something that the House, as a whole, will have to decide.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I join other Members in commending the Minister for his statement. It would be useful to get a further update as quickly as possible on the issues raised in Joanne Stuart’s report. I, like the Minister, commend our further and higher education institutions. This debate is not about the positive work that they do; it is about further education being available to and accessed by those who have and, indeed, those who have not. I remind the Minister about social inclusion.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to come to her question.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Social inclusion is a key theme in the Programme for Government. How much of the fees currently paid by students goes directly on the wages of lecturers and senior staff in our education institutions? Furthermore — it may be a radical thought — have the universities or, indeed, the Department proposed capping salary increases for senior management in those institutions?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

With respect to the Member’s last point, earlier this year I wrote to the universities to draw their attention to public anxiety about salary increases, and I received positive responses from both vice chancellors. Therefore, the senate at Queen’s and the council in the University of Ulster are aware of my views and the views of the House on the matter, and they responded positively to my letters.

Of course social inclusion is at the core of the Programme for Government. Even the most hostile observer would have to agree that we have put our money where our mouth is with respect to higher education. The facts and figures prove that there are people in higher education who would not be there other than for the fact that we had a policy to get them there. As I said to other Members, whatever we do, we must ensure that we do not jeopardise those gains. However, we also have to be realistic about what we can do, because, although the matter is devolved, we are not completely isolated. At the end of the day, finance is the factor that tips the balance and makes the difference. If we get the money that we currently receive, we will have options. However, if things change and resources are reduced due to Barnett consequentials, the whole Executive will have to take a view on the matter, because the problem will be on such a scale that my Department will not be able to deal with it on its own. The matter will have to go to the Executive, and, ultimately, the Assembly will have to vote on a Budget, which is why the Committee’s role will be very important. That is where detailed scrutiny will take place and that is where Members will be able to judge whether the balance is right. However, we do not have all the information.

I believe that I am right in saying that fees go in total to the universities, which are charged with dispensing them. We have not interfered in that flow of money. I repeat: in the past five years, we have increased by 21% our portion of the block grant and various other funding streams that we pass to the universities. On top of that, they receive the entirety of the fee income, which amounts to about £80 million a year. No one can say that we have not treated higher education generously.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. He correctly highlighted the huge changes that could come about as a result of the proposals. Of course, advocates of the proposals argue that people do not have a right to go to university. However, as the Minister rightly said, in Northern Ireland, we can be proud of the fact that so many young people from lower-income families have been able to go to university. Many of them go to university across the water. Does the Minister share my concern and, indeed, the concern of many families this morning that the proposals may lead to young people from lower-income families having their opportunities limited due to the fact that they will simply not be able to afford to attend certain courses and institutions?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I have to agree with the Member that that is one of the risks. There is no doubt that it is. However, it is also fair to say and the report makes it clear that there will be no upfront costs. Even though the total bill at the end of one’s course might be bigger, there will be no upfront cost for doing the course. That, in itself, does not mean that there is a cash barrier. However, I believe that there is a significant psychological barrier, which says to people that the debt that they will accrue is going to double or more.

Although it is fair to say that the statistics support the proposition that the introduction of fees had an initial negative effect, it was preceded by a surge of people going to university before fees were introduced, followed by a dip. However, the numbers have come back up, and we have had a 12% increase in applications in the current year. If I were to be asked whether we would have had a 12% increase in applications had our fees been more than twice what they currently are, I would have to say that, somewhere along the graph, the point would be reached at which people would say that the fees are too much.

Let me make myself clear: we are not pushing now to increase the proportion of people who go to university. That is because we believe that we have probably reached the right level. University is not for everybody. We need apprentices and people in the labour market who have different skills. We must remember that the Department has to deal with a wide range of people, including those who have no skills whatsoever and need essential reading and writing skills. I have made it absolutely clear to the Department that, in any spending cuts that we may have to make, it is not allowed to touch money that I have ring-fenced for essential skills. If people cannot read or write when they leave school, what chance in life do they have? That is a fundamental issue. As I said yesterday, it is a disgrace that so many people are coming out of school without those basic skills. We are ring-fencing money for that, and I have made it clear to the Department that that is where we are coming from.

I will say this to the Member: we need to look at precisely where the balance is and at which point someone will make a decision not to go to university because of cost. We need to research that, to talk to students and potential students and to shape the debate about the priority that the Assembly is going to give to higher education. However, that must not be to the exclusion of other areas of departmental work. We need a varied range of skills in our workforce.

University is not for everybody. I have long held the belief that there is a certain inverted snobbery in our society that someone who has a professional, technical or vocational qualification is not held in the same esteem, perhaps, as someone who has an academic qualification. That is wrong, and it is a mistake. Other countries in Europe that are successfully powering ahead, such as Germany, value people with professional, technical or vocational qualifications far more than we do. It is a question of balance. From what I have heard in the Chamber today, I am very happy that the debate that will ensue in the coming months will take of account of that balance, and that Members will be acutely aware of the risks that we run with what may be a radically different financial regime from that which we have been used to.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I welcome the Minister’s statement. Given all the comments that have been made, Northern Ireland’s reputation for learning and excellence, the importance of education to our economy and, as other Members have said, to social inclusion, and the Minister’s commitment to keeping the gains that we have made, does he agree that this has been a useful start to the debate? There is a huge responsibility on the Department, the Assembly and the Committee for Employment and Learning to lead the debate and to come up with a sensible and balanced way ahead.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I am encouraged by the tone of the debate. It is already clear that Members see the significance of the review. I felt that it was important to come to the Assembly at the earliest opportunity, even though I readily admit that, between 7.30 am and now, we have not been given an opportunity to carry out an in-depth analysis. Nevertheless, I thought that it was important at least to start things off so that we can try to shape the debate in our community. At the end of the day, decisions that we will make in here will determine the outcome. If you believe in devolution, as I do, that is the name of the game. However, we cannot be isolated from external factors, of which finance is, of course, a critical one. Even though someone of the Member’s wealth may not have problems, everybody else has to cut their coat according to their cloth. We are no exception.

We want to protect the most vulnerable in our community and encourage people into university education, as it can be a life-changing experience that can open doors. All the evidence suggests that university graduates earn more. However, as I said, they are not the only people in the community whom we must consider; there are others. I have pointed out to the Member that among those are people who are less fortunate do not even have the basic skills to read, write and count properly. Until the Assembly cures that problem to its satisfaction, a balance must be struck. People in our community have so many varied levels of ability and skill. That does not mean that they do not have potential; however, we are not doing things 100% right because we still need to resolve those problems. I am confident that the Assembly will have a mature debate on the issue in which I look forward to participating. I am sure that the Committee will want to make its own decisions and decide on its work programme. Over the next few months, we will be very busy on this subject.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for coming along this morning. The SDLP is disappointed that, although the Minister has conceded that Northern Ireland is in a unique situation with special circumstances, Joanne Stuart’s report has lain on someone’s desk for six months, during which time we could have had a mature, responsive and informed debate to lead up to now. Joanne Stuart’s report will now be absolutely overshadowed by Browne’s report. Given the high levels of poverty and disadvantage in Northern Ireland — much greater than those in Britain — does the Minister not believe that the Browne report will cause further hardship, distress, disadvantage and poverty across Northern Ireland?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

There are two arguments to take place. We knew, as did Joanne, from the beginning that the Browne report was coming. We were the first in the UK, I think, to kick off the process, but we recognised and she made it clear that her report could not be read in isolation from the Browne report. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) does a great deal of work for us. We are not isolated; we are in the UCAS system and are part of the UK higher education system. Therefore, although we could have produced the report earlier, Joanne Stuart took the view — rightly, as it turns out — that she may have to look again at some of her recommendations in light of the Browne report. That is exactly what happened. When I spoke to her yesterday, she was willing to conduct an update of her report in light of those recommendations.

The financial arrangements that we are likely to face today are a world away from those that obtained in February or March when I got Joanne’s report. The Member should not despair: although the report issues huge challenges, until we see the financial implications — we will get some flavour of those next week — it is too early for the Member to make a rash judgement that, somehow or other, our achievements in higher education will take a nosedive. I have not come to that conclusion. The Member’s contribution was unique: it is the first time that he did not get his oar in about a university in Londonderry.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Lots of comments have been made about barriers to people from socially disadvantaged communities embarking on future degrees. From what I read, the report proposes doing away with bursaries in universities. That would be another barrier on top of the doubling of the fees. Will the Minister, at least, consider encouraging universities to maintain bursaries that often help young people from lower-income families, particularly for degrees such as medicine and architecture, for which students have to buy a lot of material and expensive books?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Member is correct to point out the issue of bursaries. Members will be aware that both universities have been making bursaries available. Indeed, the year before last, Queen’s introduced a higher level of bursary to encourage students to go into STEM areas. However, the report, as I understand it, anticipates a higher level of support for students as some way of offsetting the bursary issues. The Member will also be aware that a higher level of maintenance grant support is provided to students in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore, to some extent, we already have the best of both worlds, because we have bursaries and higher levels of student support. However, that detail, significant though it might be, can only be read in the context of whether there will be Barnett consequentials. Until we see what those consequential will be, it will be hard to be definitive. I am trying to be careful not to hang us on hooks that we cannot get off, because we do not have all of the information.

The report talks about greater support for part-time students. We should remember that they, to some extent, have been forgotten about in this matter. We have been talking primarily about full-time students, but there is a large number of part-time students. There is huge potential to grow the number of part-time students, and that will allow people, even during their career, to change and to increase their learning. Indeed, the Department has been thinking of looking at the bursary model to steer or encourage students in particular directions.

The Member mentioned medical students. My colleague the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will have to decide how many students he will support for medical purposes. The ripples of the report and the spending review will spread far and wide, and it is too early to tell what the full implications will be for bursaries until we see the financial package and the number of medical students that my colleague will be able to support. Any change in that will have a huge financial impact on the university.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his response. It reminds me somewhat of the lyrics of a song from ‘Paint Your Wagon’: “Where are we off to? I don’t know. How are we going to get there? I haven’t got a clue”. To some degree, we are operating in a vacuum. Will the Minister assure the House that the consultation process that he is about to launch will cover all Lord Browne’s recommendations rather than being perhaps narrowly preoccupied with one or two? Will he bear in mind the important role that further education plays already and can continue to play in the future? The Minister already gave an indication of that.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

Our whole approach has to be integrated. I will not rise to the Member’s ‘Paint Your Wagon’ analogy, but the consultation will not simply be on the Browne report. We will also have the Stuart report, and we will have to have our own priorities. These are reports, and it is up to the Assembly and to the elected Members to take the decisions, not Lord Browne or anyone else who writes a report. Ministers commissioned those reports to advise the Government, and we commissioned Joanne Stuart to advise the Government here. We must shape the debate in the light of our circumstances.

The Member is quite right: he knows that I have done everything in my power to protect the further education sector from the financial difficulties that are being experienced. In fact, when cuts were made at Easter and subsequently, I did not take any money off further education, simply because I believe that it is at the cutting edge of our economic development policy. Therefore, the consultation and the debates that we must have must be shaped not only by the Browne report and the Stuart report but by our priorities. That is what we are here for. We are not here simply to rubber-stamp the reports that we ask for. Reports are there to help and inform us, to enable us to have an informed debate, to provide factual information and to shine a light on a particular issue from a point of view that may not otherwise have been considered. At the end of the day, Members must go through the Lobbies and make a decision. It is, therefore, up to us to make the decisions, and we should not hide behind reports. Reports are there for our benefit and to inform us, but, ultimately, it is we who must vote in the House to decide what we are going to do.

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. I wish to ask him about two elements. First, I listened to the views of Members around the Chamber on the need to ensure that access to higher education prevails for people from less well-off and lower-income backgrounds and that, in future, people from all backgrounds have access to higher education so that they can advance themselves and contribute to society. Secondly, has the Minister given any thought to any of the themes that have emerged from the Browne report? For example, has he given any thought to how students who currently attend universities in England and Wales can be retained in the North and attend local universities? Do local universities have the capacity to accommodate those students?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Member raised a range of issues, including access, about which most Members asked. As I said, there is a widening access section in the Department that is led by a senior official. I am briefed regularly by that person, and, 10 or so days ago, I went to see him specifically to go through some of the issues. He is at the point of providing his first draft on the next stage in the widening access strategy. In other words, he has identified, through statistical evidence and research, pockets in which a reasonable proportion of people is still not accessing higher education. Therefore, as I said, although we have good statistics to show that progress has been made, we have still not completed the journey. It is fair to say that, depending on how this turns out, we may take a wrong turn, and, depending on how the finances work out, we may be forced into taking wrong turns. The Member knows that my Department and I are committed to this. We put our money where our mouth is.

I mentioned the Step-Up campaign, which many people and many schools want to join. People are coming to me and saying that they want to see the areas extended. I have given money to ensure that the programme is guaranteed until 2014, which is about as far ahead as I can look. Schools are knocking down the door to get into the programme, and that is positive. However, we will have to remain vigilant as we move forward.

The Member asked whether the students whom we export can be retained. The underprovision of places at Northern Ireland’s universities impacts on students because it tends to raise the bar for entry qualifications. Consequently, a number of them leave. However, at the moment, we have a group of people — I did research on this at an early stage — whom we call “determined leavers”.

One of the first things that I did when I became Minister in 2007 was to ask Professor Bob Osborne to carry out research into why those people were leaving. The response was that certain courses were not available and that people think that certain universities, such as Oxbridge, the University of London, etc, have a prestige attached to them. In one sense, it is good for people to have a different vision and a different perspective. Many people, certainly in the Belfast doughnut, argue that if they go to Queen’s or the University of Ulster, they are not going away to university.

However, the whole economic picture has changed since then. If we were to look at fees around the levels that people are talking about, it would completely change the formula that we have been working on. It would have a profound impact on people’s decisions. I do not know whether capacity exists in the universities, but capacity can be created. We control the number of full-time students by the use of the maximum student number (MaSN) cap, which is a cap on student numbers purely as a financial control mechanism. If the report were read in a certain way, one could take the view that the MaSN cap is no longer required, because the MaSN cap is there to control our spending. There is no need for an MaSN cap if the income comes from the student and not from the Government. That completely changes the dynamics of the whole thing.

I suspect that, at the end of the day, the coalition will have to come to a compromise. It will be hard to envisage some Members in London voting through the Lobbies in view of the pledges that they made in other places to implement, effectively, a free market in universities. Therefore, a balance may be achieved. I have no doubt that capacity can be created, and there is certainly huge potential: there is no MaSN cap as far as part-time students are concerned. However, I have no doubt that it is there purely to control government spending where there is a balance between that and the supply. In other words, we could say that we will give the universities £x million to spend however they like but that they will not get any more: if they get more students, that is up to them. Lord Mandelson did that last year as a control mechanism. He said that he was raising the MaSN cap but that he was not increasing their money. It was the usual smoke and mirrors that one comes to expect from certain politicians. Those questions will have to be asked and discussed as we move forward.

Executive Committee Business

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I beg to move

That the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2010 be affirmed.

I am seeking the Assembly’s approval for the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2010. I know that people have been studying the regulations from 7.30 am, in between reading Lord Browne’s report, so I am sure that Members are familiar with them.

The regulations are subject to the draft affirmative procedure as laid down in the parent legislation, the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. The regulations were laid before the Assembly in draft on 17 September and it is intended that they will come into operation on 1 December.

The regulations amend the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005. The regulations are intended to protect the interests of those who use the services of employment agencies and employment businesses — for instance, work-seekers and hirers — and put in place the minimum standards that work-seekers and hirers can expect, such as the provision of terms and conditions, restrictions on charging fees to work-seekers, and proper handling of clients’ money. The regulations also remove a number of regulatory requirements on agencies that have been deemed burdensome and unnecessary. Those are undoubted benefits, both for employers and for workers who avail themselves of the services provided by the private recruitment sector.

Employers benefit from the flexibility that agency workers bring to their businesses, particularly during seasonal fluctuations or peaks and troughs in demand. Agency work also allows companies to increase production on a temporary basis, before committing permanently to expansion, which is particularly important during a period of economic renewal. For work-seekers, agency work can be used as a stepping stone to a permanent job, as a way of entering or re-entering the job market, or simply as a way of working more flexibly to help to balance domestic responsibilities.

The increasing use of the Internet has resulted in work-seekers making greater use of electronic job boards or e-recruitment. It is important that the law in relation to the private recruitment sector is fit for purpose and does not restrict access to job opportunities online. The flexibility and capacity for innovation that the e-recruitment sector provides as a whole will be vital to Northern Ireland’s economic recovery.

The vast majority of employment agencies and businesses are reputable companies that treat work-seekers fairly, and the private recruitment sector has, on the whole, made a significant and positive contribution to the Northern Ireland economy. Recent research by my Department indicated that in 2009 approximately 270 recruitment companies were operating in Northern Ireland. The research concluded that the majority of temporary agency workers were satisfied with their employment agency, had never experienced any problems with payments and were placed in temporary employment within a few weeks of registering with an agency. I welcome those findings, but I am aware that some rogue agencies, which attempt to exploit work-seekers to gain a competitive advantage, continue to operate.

The purpose of the statutory rule is twofold. It includes deregulatory measures aimed at reducing administrative burdens on employment agencies, a move that also reflects the need to keep pace with new technology and changing business practices. The legislation also seeks to increase protection for work-seekers in the modelling and entertainment sectors, in which there is the greatest potential for exploitation. Those are the main reasons for the amending regulations that I bring before the House today.

The amending regulations will remove the requirement on employment agencies that supply work-seekers to permanent employment to carry out certain suitability checks. That change applies only to permanent workers, and it will not reduce the obligations on employment businesses that place people on temporary assignments. Currently, all employment agencies and businesses must undertake checks on the suitability of work-seekers who are supplied for permanent and temporary recruitment. Those checks include checks on identity, experience, training, qualifications and any authorisations that the hirer requires or are required by law. However, certain checks that are required to be carried out by an employment agency are also required by law to be carried out by the hirer, resulting in an obvious duplication of effort. The regulations will remove the require­ment for employment agencies to carry out suitability checks when supplying permanent work-seekers to hirers. That deregulatory measure is intended to reduce the administrative burden on such agencies, to simplify matters for work-seekers and to remove unnecessary duplication. However, statutory suitability checks will continue to be carried out by hirers.

As I mentioned earlier, the amendment will also assist electronic job boards that recruit exclusively online. In their simplest form, those job boards allow the swapping of lists of vacancies and CVs. Such agencies do not meet their clients and, therefore, do not carry out checks. Currently, the business model for those businesses makes it difficult for them to comply with the requirements. The online recruitment industry is one of the most dynamic and innovative sectors in Northern Ireland, and it is clearly not in our interest to threaten that important route to employment.

There is one important exception to the removal of suitability checks. The regulations make it clear that, in the case of an agency that intends to place workers in jobs in which they work with vulnerable people, there will be a requirement to continue to carry out those checks.

Removing all of the checks would leave gaps, potentially, in that people who work with the vulnerable in their own homes may not be covered by any checking regime. Clearly, that would be unacceptable. Protection of the vulnerable should remain paramount, although it will mean that some checks will continue to be carried out by both agency and hirer.

A further reduction of administrative burdens is the removal of the requirement for employment agencies to agree terms with work-seekers before finding them work and to do the same with hirers before agreeing to place workers with them. Those provisions add little or no value, and some respondents to the consultation felt that the checks were significant and costly. For the work-seeker who is seeking permanent placement, agreement of terms should be with the hirer. Agreement of terms between an agency and a hirer should be purely a contractual matter.

In addition, the regulations will be amended so that job advertisements simply state whether the vacancy is temporary or permanent. That move recognises the fact that the terms “employment agency” and “employment business” can be confusing to the wider public. I am sure that Members will agree that the simpler definitions are more likely to be understood by work-seekers and hirers. I trust that Members will also agree that the regulations strike a sensible balance between the removal of unnecessary requirements and the retention of important ones.

I will now move to the additional protections that the regulations put in place for work-seekers. The regulations will provide for upfront fees to be banned altogether for photographic and fashion models. The cooling-off period of seven days will be extended to 30 days for those who are seeking work as actors, extras, singers, dancers and other performers.

In 2008, I brought a statutory rule before the Assembly that amended the conduct regulations to introduce the seven-day cooling off period for agencies charging upfront fees. That cooling-off period allowed a work-seeker to cancel or withdraw from, without detriment or penalty, any contract that sought to include their details in a publication. That was to address concerns at the time that some unscrupulous agencies were engaging in hard-sell tactics to persuade vulnerable would-be entertainers or models to pay high fees for inclusion in a publication with unrealistic promises of work. It gave the individuals seven days away from the pressure of the photographic session or studio to think about whether or not he or she wanted to proceed with the terms laid out by the agency.

In Great Britain, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate continues to receive a steady stream of complaints about abuse of upfront fees. Problems seem to be most prevalent in the modelling and entertainment sectors. It seems clear that the seven-day cooling off period does not provide adequate protection for those who seek work in certain sectors of the entertainment industry. Fortunately, we, in Northern Ireland, have not seen the extent of abuses that have been experienced in Great Britain, but the potential exists. It is sensible for Northern Ireland to replicate changes in legislation in Great Britain. That will prevent any rogue agencies’ attempts to move their operations to Northern Ireland, if they can no longer operate so freely in Great Britain, and ensure that people who seek work in those sectors here have the same rights and protections as people in the rest of the United Kingdom.

The ban on charging upfront fees to work-seekers will apply to those who are seeking employment as photographic or fashion models; the majority of scams are targeted at such individuals. However, it will not have a major effect on reputable agencies; they will still be able to charge commission on actual work found. The increase in the cooling-off period from seven days to 30 days will apply for work-seekers who want employment as actors, background artists, extras, musicians, singers, dancers or other performers. The regulations will also be tightened to ensure that agencies inform clients about their right to cancel; give them a draft of the information to be provided about them in a publication; and include provision for a refund if no publication is produced or circulated within 60 days.

The seven-day cooling-off period will remain in place for occupations relating to behind-the-scenes work, such as production staff and camera operators, as there is no evidence of abuse in those occupations. The regulations also contain anti-avoidance measures to allow entertainers a 30-day cooling-off period for additional services, including photos and audiovisual services. That is to ensure that no loopholes remain to exploit vulnerable work-seekers by providing them with expensive but worthless portfolios.

I am grateful to the Committee for Employment and Learning for its detailed scrutiny of the policy proposals and regulations. At its meeting on 29 September, the Committee recommended that they be approved by the Assembly.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for bringing forward the motion to affirm the Draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2010.

The Committee considered the SL1 background note to the statutory rule at its meeting on 8 September and raised no issues. At its meeting on 29 September, the Committee considered the statutory rule, which, by that stage, had been laid in draft, and members offered no objections to it. The Committee has been supportive of the Minister’s efforts to ensure that employment agencies and businesses are run fairly and according to the law.

The Committee supports legislation that creates fair, effective and efficient administration of those organisations and provides a system of inspection that will protect groups that could be vulnerable to exploitation. Accordingly, the Committee supports the motion. I commend the Minister for bringing it to the House.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I join the Chairperson in giving full and wholehearted endorsement to a very valuable set of regulations. As I looked around the Chamber, I could not help but think that very few of us would have to pay upfront fees for modelling. As the saying goes, politics is show business for ugly people. Is the Minister fully satisfied that the protections in respect of employment agencies are as effective as they can be and that there are sufficient safeguards in the system for vulnerable people?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The same thought was going through my mind as I was making the statement, but I decided not to make comment on it. Nevertheless, with regard to the Member’s fundamental point, I am sure that he and others have been lobbied by organisations. Let us be clear: this is not a serious problem here. It is a serious problem in Great Britain. I believe that we have a balance, wanting to remove as much regulation as we can, consistent with the protections that we believe people are entitled to receive. I am sure that Members can imagine circumstances in which a young person sees a potential for a career and goes to somebody who tells them that they will prepare a fancy portfolio, that their name and photograph will appear in a publication, and that that will be their stairway to stardom. You can see how somebody could easily be taken to the cleaners in those circumstances.

We have tried to ensure that people are protected, but we do not want to strangle the opportunity for business to thrive. Any regulations that we impose on businesses have a negative aspect to them. It costs money to implement regulations, it takes time, and many of the businesses are small and are run by one person or a small number of people. Therefore, we do not want to intervene more than necessary, but we have a duty. The same applies to the Trading Standards Service. The principles are well-established. If people sell shoddy goods, there are rights and obligations that have to be followed. That is the nearest parallel to what we are trying to do here. It is trying to have as light a touch as possible, consistent with ensuring that people, particularly vulnerable elements, are not exploited by unscrupulous people.

We know that those people are out there. Certainly, reports from Great Britain are clear on that. The fact that that issue is not a big problem in Northern Ireland does not mean that it cannot become a problem. If somebody sees that a loophole exists here, they could be encouraged to come here to exploit it.

I am sure that Members have seen on television during the past few days that a company had offered to paint people’s houses with a 15-year protection guarantee. All of a sudden, after a few months, people discovered that the paint was starting to flake off their houses. That is a classic example of the type of case for which trading standards law was introduced, that is, to ensure that there was some honesty in the system. The case of the agencies in question is similar. Quite frankly, I believe that the vast majority of agencies make a positive contribution to the Northern Ireland economy, even in that particular sector.

In response to Mr Bell, I say that the Department has struck the right balance. I appreciate the Committee’s support for the implementation of those regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2010 be approved.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The next item of business is a motion from the Minister of Justice. It deals with Department of Justice matters that are to be added to the Programme for Government. I advise Members that remarks about other elements of the Programme for Government will be outside the scope of the debate. I warn Members who might be tempted to go beyond the scope of the debate that I will ask them to take their seats and I will move on to the next Member to speak. Members on all sides have been well warned.

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to two hours for the debate. The Minister will have 10 minutes in which to propose the motion and 15 minutes in which to make his winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I beg to move

That the addendum to the Programme for Government for the Department of Justice, as agreed by the Executive, be approved.

It gives me great pleasure to move the motion, which stands in my name, on behalf of the Executive. Although the devolution of policing and justice powers was an important step forward in the peace process and the political process, I believe that we will be judged by how this Assembly and Executive carry out their responsibilities for the benefit of all the people of Northern Ireland.

Unfortunately, events of recent weeks are a harsh reminder that there are people in the community who do not want to see devolution working. However, that cannot distract us. Therefore, I am pleased to bring the addendum to the Assembly to demonstrate formally that devolution is making a difference. I am also pleased to launch a consultation on new sentencing guidelines mechanisms, which is one of the priority actions in the addendum. However, I will return to that in a few moments.

The addendum, which has been circulated to Members, sets out the Department of Justice’s priorities. In line with the remaining period of the Programme for Government, it focuses on the current financial year and sets out the foundation for an agenda for change that will impact in the longer term. I am grateful to colleagues on the Committee for Justice and in the Executive for their helpful comments and contributions.

The Hillsborough Castle Agreement required the Minister of Justice to draft an addendum to the Programme for Government for the Department of Justice. The agreement states that the addendum should be a:

“seamless fit into the current PfG”

that would be developed collaboratively with officials from other relevant departments. It continued:

“Confidence, avoidable delay, rehabilitation, recidivism and the interests of victims and witnesses”

should be “key elements” of the addendum, as well as policies that support effective policing.

Building safer communities requires joined-up working across government. Therefore, the views of other Departments have been incorporated in the addendum.

The Hillsborough Castle Agreement also indicated actions that the Department’s agreed policies could usefully include. A number of topics were listed, including a code of practice for victims; tribunal reform; public legal services; a sentencing guidelines council; a review of prisons; and a strategy for the management of offenders. I am pleased to confirm that all those actions have been reflected in the addendum.

The current Executive set themselves an overarching aim to build a peaceful, fair and prosperous society in Northern Ireland, where there is respect for the rule of law and where everyone can enjoy a better quality of life now and in the years to come.

The justice priorities outlined in the addendum very much reinforce that overall strategic aim. Although actions have been identified for the lifetime of the current Programme for Government, the underlying themes will help set a justice agenda for the future.

Members will appreciate that it is not possible to incorporate all the Department’s activities into 15 key goals, but, in broad terms, they underpin a strategic framework for reforming and reshaping the justice system in Northern Ireland. The goals have been brigaded under five broad themes: reducing offending and dealing with its consequences; building safer communities; increasing access to justice; supporting justice in a shared future; and resourcing and supporting delivery across the justice system.

I want to say just a few words about those goals, as time does not permit me to speak about them in detail. As the actions need to be achieved by March next year, work has already commenced on a number of fronts; indeed, it is well under way on a number of fronts. For example, one of the key goals is to develop new legislation, and I intend to introduce a justice Bill to the Assembly next week. The content of the draft Bill has already been shared with the Justice Committee. It will improve community safety, enhance our services to victims and witnesses, and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the justice system.

On 13 September, I announced a fundamental review of public legal services, which is another key goal. That review will address from first principles the question of how best to help people secure access to justice and will focus particularly on whether there are better ways of resolving disputes, including approaches that do not require court action.

Work is also well advanced on developing a new code of practice for victims, and I hope to launch a consultation document soon. The intention is to improve services to those directly affected by crime, and that is in addition to the guides that I published shortly after I was appointed Minister.

To reduce offending and deal with its consequences, work has already commenced on developing a strategy for reducing offending. That approach will link in other Departments to ensure a co-ordinated response and to deliver the added value from joined-up working.

A fundamental and thorough review of prisons is already under way to review the conditions of detention, management and oversight of prisons. That review, led by Dame Anne Owers, will inform and provide the impetus for a strategic efficiency and effectiveness programme to design a new model to transform the delivery of prison services.

Devolution also provides the freedom and opportunity to set new long-term policing objectives for Northern Ireland. Retaining the current long-term objectives, as determined by a previous direct rule Secretary of State, would be a wasted opportunity.

However, I am not only focused on the here and now. We need to address the longer-term, more strategic context in which we are operating, so new long-term policing objectives will be agreed by next March.

Finally, the Hillsborough agreement specifically proposed that the establishment of a sentencing guidelines council would be considered for Northern Ireland. Therefore, I am pleased to announce to the House that I am meeting that commitment by publishing a consultation paper on a sentencing guidelines mechanism. The consultation document presents three options: the establishment of an independent sentencing guidelines council; an independent sentencing advisory panel; and a mechanism for sentencing guidelines based on measures already being taken by the Lord Chief Justice to enhance the guidelines currently available to sentencers.

Members will be aware of the work being done by the Lord Chief Justice, which he set out in his speech at the start of the legal term. His speech identified possible priority areas and invited public comment. It is clear that sentencing in any individual case is and must remain a matter for the judiciary, but sometimes public expectations exceed what may be appropriate in an individual case. I believe that public confidence in sentencing is fundamental to an effective criminal justice system, so the consultation seeks views on the role that a guidelines mechanism might play in enhancing public confidence, transparency, consistency and community engagement in sentencing.

Appended to the addendum, for convenience, is the Department of Justice’s contributions to public service agreements (PSAs), which will be integrated with existing PSAs for the current Programme for Government. They cover a number of areas, including tackling organised crime; increasing public confidence and victim and witness satisfaction in the justice system; making arrangements to transfer tribunals to the Department of Justice; and ensuring that the necessary forensic science capacity is in place to support an effective justice system.

Underpinning all the work of the Department will be a focus on building a shared future. The justice system can play a positive part in helping to build that shared future, working in co-operation with others, and the Department of Justice will develop policies and strategies to support the Executive’s wider strategy.

My Department is working with other Departments already, and, in particular, I value the engagement between the Department of Justice, the Police Service and the Department for Social Develop­ment in working on how we tackle problems in some particularly disadvantaged areas.

Although the addendum sets out priorities for action in the short term, it also provides a framework for a longer-term agenda for change. Progress has been made on a number of key goals already, and I will be making more announcements on new policies and initiatives over the next few weeks and months. Those will include details of the youth justice review; publication of a strategy for the management of women offenders; and changes to the mental health legislation, with a wider review also taking place. The final initiative flows from the Bamford report, which is led by DHSSPS, but Department of Justice officials are working with health colleagues on ensuring that that comes into play.

Although the justice system will need to live within its available resources, important work on delivering speedier justice and providing support for victims will continue. I believe that we have a challenging agenda, but the addendum provides an important framework for a justice system that meets the needs of the people of Northern Ireland in the immediate future of this programme and as we seek to build for the future. The consultation on the sentencing guidelines mechanism that is commencing today is a further practical example of how the goals outlined in the addendum become a reality and deliver the benefits of devolution for all our community.

The addendum is the result of widespread collaboration and co-operation. It is based on input, not only from the Department of Justice but from other Departments and from the Justice Committee. It builds on the Hillsborough agreement, and it builds further on proposals that my party put forward and discussed with others around the time of those Hillsborough meetings. I have great pleasure in commending it to the House.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Committee for Justice has considered the Department of Justice addendum to the Programme for Government on several occasions over the past number of months, and, at our meeting on 9 September, we agreed that we broadly support it. However, the Committee has expressed disappointment that some of the targets do not appear to be particularly stretching. I will return to that point shortly.

The Justice Committee first considered the Department of Justice draft addendum to the Programme for Government at meetings on 24 June and 1 July. At those meetings, the Committee identified issues with the draft addendum with which it was not content and which, it believed, needed to be addressed before the addendum would be fit for purpose.

Among the issues raised by the Committee was a concern that some of key goals were not strategic enough. The use of percentages and the absence of baseline information in relation to setting key goals made it extremely difficult to assess what the goals represented in delivery terms and whether they were realistic, too ambitious or not sufficiently stretching. The Committee was also concerned that at least one of the goals had already been achieved. There was also an absence of information on how the goals were to be achieved. The Minister of Justice accepted the points raised by the Committee, and further work was carried out by the Department during the summer to revise and improve the draft addendum to ensure that it better reflected the key strategic aims and goals to improve the justice system.

A revised addendum to the Programme for Government, which the Minister of Justice has presented for approval by the Assembly today, was presented to the Justice Committee on 9 September. Following further consideration and discussion, the Committee has agreed to broadly support it, as I indicated earlier, and the key strategic aims of building safer communities in Northern Ireland, delivering greater access to the justice system and reducing offending and dealing with its consequences. However, the Committee is disappointed that some of the targets, particularly those in relation to key goal 11 — to reduce the number of non-domestic violence with injury crimes — and key goal 12 — to reduce the number of recorded antisocial behaviour incidents — are not more ambitious. The Committee also noted that at least one of the targets set by the Department is dependent on the level of reporting of crime by the public and raised concerns regarding whether that method of setting targets would provide a true reflection of what was being achieved, given that the level of reporting crime could fluctuate widely. The setting of targets and the measurement of their achievement is likely to be an area that the Committee for Justice will wish to keep under review and return to in due course.

The Committee considered the content of the Department of Justice’s addendum to the Programme for Government in detail and is now broadly content with the document presented to the Assembly. It represents an ambitious programme of work that will be difficult to deliver within the set timescales. The Justice Bill is a large piece of legislation to bring through the Assembly within a tight timescale. The Committee for Justice intends not only to scrutinise the individual policies in the addendum to the Programme for Government but to monitor closely the Department’s progress in delivering the overall programme and its goals and targets.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabh mo leithscéal as a bheith mall. Tá mé sásta go bhfuil an addendum seo os ár gcomhair inniu. Mr Speaker, I apologise to you and the Minister for being late. I am sure that I did not miss anything of which we had prior notice.

We welcome the addendum to the Programme for Government. It is appropriate and timely. The Chairperson outlined a number of the concerns that were raised in Committee, so I will not itemise them.

The addendum to the Programme for Government will provide an opportunity for us to improve the way in which the justice system works. It will give accountability to the wider public, and it should provide a sense of ownership to people so that solutions that the Department of Justice comes up with will be relevant to those who live in the North. In all such situations, opportunity is one thing, but delivery is the main issue, which is what people will focus on. What we and the addendum to the Programme for Government are trying to do is good and well researched, but we must now ensure that it is delivered. We must ensure that the system and process of verifying that is not simply down to the Department or the scrutiny Committee but stretches across everyone involved in the criminal justice system, including victims and many other people. When we do that, we will be able to ascertain whether opportunities have been realised. We have to learn, and the process should not remain fixed.

The Chairperson outlined a number of targets. I am not going to detail the targets, but, where evidence is produced that shows that the targets are not ambitious enough, the Department should take steps to ensure that any targets that it sets in the future will be realised and verifiable.

The addendum to the Programme for Government will allow confidence to be built up in every aspect of policing and justice. If what is being promised is delivered, it should speed up justice and access to justice. The Criminal Justice Inspection’s report ‘Avoidable Delay’ is also timely. The Committee heard evidence about better co-operation between the many agencies involved in bringing about prosecutions, and, if some of the recommendations made by the Criminal Justice Inspection are delivered, we should see better results on avoidable delay in the future.

The issue concerns better access to justice. Access to justice has been criticised in times past, and the programme, as outlined by the Minister, will allow better access. His addendum details innovative improvements, and, if they are delivered, most people will welcome them. The Committee discussed the provision of legal aid and the impact that that will have on representation. Having listened to many of the evidence sessions, I think that there is a focus on ensuring that people have good representation so that access is not denied according to a person’s ability to be granted or not granted legal aid.

There are two things that I would like to cover. The Hillsborough agreement promised a review of prison management and detention and the steps to establish a review team. Sinn Féin met the members of the review team. I have no doubt that they realise the challenge that they face but are going about it in a professional and objective way. However, the important things for us are opportunity and delivery, and the challenge begins when the review group makes its recommendations. Too often, we have had reports on various aspects of the justice system, but the challenge of delivery was not taken up as much as it should have been.

The other aspect to welcome is the Justice Bill. The Minister is ready to present that to the Committee, and the Committee will go through the various stages. Many aspects of the Bill will tease out our ability, which goes back to the opportunities that the addendum provides. The Justice Bill will be one of those testing grounds.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

The party welcomes the addendum and looks forward to the challenges that we face.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the addendum to the Programme for Government and to raise matters that go to the very core of the community. We are all aware that much reform is needed across the criminal justice system, and even the Minister accepts some of that. The addendum will be a start to that reform process.

I am pleased to see that the Justice Minister is giving due prominence to the role of victims and witnesses. The least that we can do for those involved in legal processes through no fault of their own is to ease their passage through the system. I am aware of the impact that giving evidence can have on victims and witnesses, including secondary trauma. I welcome all moves to make their well-being central to the justice process. That is particularly important for children and vulnerable and intimidated adult victims and witnesses. Aside from our responsibility for their welfare, it is important to recognise that those who offer testimony are vital to the justice process. If they are discouraged from participating, our ability to deal with offenders and criminality is severely diminished. Organisations such as Victim Support provide a valuable support to victims throughout the criminal justice process, and I pay tribute to their work in safeguarding the rights and needs of victims.

I am disappointed by a lack of specific targets to reduce the time taken to progress cases. Unfortunately, avoidable delay is a distinct feature of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. Not only does that impact on public perception and confidence, it is also incredibly wasteful. Alleged offenders spend longer than they should in prison on remand waiting for their trial, with a resultant cost to the public purse. The criminal justice inspectorate published a report into avoidable delays some time ago. To my knowledge, little has improved, and all the time the impact on the public purse is growing unsustainably. That needs to be addressed with an increased appetite by the Justice Minister to improve efficiency and increase overall confidence in the system.

I will be interested to see how the Department of Justice will interact with the shared future agenda, particularly in light of the much-publicised inadequacies of the CSI strategy. The only way forward on equality is to create a genuinely pluralist and integrationist society built on respect for all our traditions. The Ulster Unionist Party reiterates our need to create a genuine CSI strategy for Northern Ireland.

I welcome the key goal to build a safer community by reducing the number of non-domestic violence-with-injury crimes by 5%. The chief aim of any criminal justice system is to make communities safer. However, I am concerned that there are no targets relating to domestic violence. The PSNI responds to a domestic abuse call-out every 23 minutes, yet targeting domestic violence is not specified as a key goal. My colleague Michael McGimpsey has spearheaded specific reform through the Tackling Violence at Home strategy, and we need to take corporate action against the prevalence of domestic violence in Northern Ireland. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reassurance that he will not allow domestic violence to slip down his justice agenda.

It is regrettable that it will be difficult to meet the targets in such a short period, but the Ulster Unionist Party will continue to engage positively with the criminal justice agenda in order to best serve all the people of Northern Ireland.

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

I support the motion. As far as the SDLP is concerned, the addendum is welcome. There is little in it with which one can disagree. It is like motherhood and apple pie: one always approves of such things. The addendum may be rich in aspiration and poor in application, but I hope it is not. It remains to be seen whether this part of the Programme for Government will be fully and properly implemented.

I have listened to Lord Morrow and other colleagues who mentioned targets. Their criticism is that the targets are not good enough et cetera. My view is that it is difficult to set targets in this area of government. If I am affected by crime, even as a single victim, I am nevertheless deeply affected by it. I do not think that we can measure the effectiveness of the system through targets. One can do so in other areas of government; for example, capital expenditure. However, it is difficult to do so in this area. I say that by way of observation.

We have a continuing and increasing threat from paramilitaries, and I hope that that will not undermine the tremendous work that has been done in policing in Northern Ireland. It is a threat to the security of us all, but I hope it does not undermine the great progress that we have made in policing, the establishment of community policing, the reforms of the Police Service and other progress made in that respect.

The programme rightly emphasises young people at risk, and the SDLP is very supportive of measures that can increase protection for such young people.

We also want to see full implementation of the prison reform programme. I am aware of the work of the Minister’s review team, and I am impressed by those who are conducting the review. It is a central issue, and we need to see real reform of the Prison Service, including improved opportunities for the rehabilitation of prisoners and addressing their skills and educational deficits. That makes sense. If we rehabilitate prisoners, we reduce reoffending and enrich people’s lives. That is good for society. We must also address prisoners’ mental health problems and take that issue very seriously. There are many people in prison who are suffering from mental health problems and personality disorders. We have to bring resources to bear on those problems.

It is right and proper that we have a strategy for women offenders to address offending behaviour, and we should seriously examine and advance the case for a new women’s facility. That is an important aim. We must also seek alternatives to prison and deal with the ridiculous situation whereby fine defaulters are imprisoned. We must find alternatives to that. We must deal with delay, because delays in our judicial system increase the number of prisoners on remand, which puts greater stress on the management of our prison estate.

I am disappointed that there is not a greater emphasis on North/South co-operation in the addendum.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

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

It is essential, given the common threats and problems in relation to crime, that we have —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member’s time is up.

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

We must have a deeper North/South dimension to justice.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I welcome the debate and, hopefully, the eventual passage of this addendum to the Programme for Government. The Alliance Party has always maintained that the devolution of policing and justice was more than just a simple act that occurred in April. It was part of a process, and, in many respects, the real work has now begun. What happened before was high politics; it is now about demonstrating to the people of Northern Ireland how putting accountability and decision-making in local hands can really make a difference to people’s lives. In many respects, the real prize of devolution is the ability to have joined-up government with other Departments and agencies. This Programme for Government addendum will begin that process, which we will hopefully see deepened in the months and years to come.

The requirement for an addendum to the Programme for Government may have been referred to and required by the Hillsborough agreement, but the Alliance Party has always viewed it as being central to the devolution of policing and justice, certainly since well before the time of the agreement. Even though we are now only months away from a new, all-embracing Programme for Government, this debate is far from an academic exercise. It is a useful stocktake of where we are and where we are going. It is also an opportunity for a wider debate on justice issues. This is about much more than motherhood and apple pie; it is a real, solid piece of work that addresses the real issues facing the people of Northern Ireland.

Criminal justice issues are not just for the Department of Justice; they are genuinely cross-cutting issues. A lot can be done through the Department of Justice, but real outcomes, particularly in managing offenders and reducing offending, will require inputs from a range of agencies and Departments, whether that is the Department of Education, the Department for Employment and Learning, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety or, if the outcome relates to housing, the Department for Social Development.

It is important that we understand how to measure the success of an effective criminal justice system. For me, success is not about how many people are in prison or how many we convict through the court system, important though efficiency in the courts is. The real standard that we have to judge by is how people in the community feel. Do they feel safe? Do they think that crime is falling? Do they feel secure in their home and on the streets? When we know that, we will know whether we are making a real difference to people’s lives.

As a liberal, I think it is important that we focus on the individual; that is the victim, the witness and, at times, the perpetrator. It is also important that we tackle any sense of impunity in our system, whether that comes from expediency on the part of certain actors in the system or the threats and current reality of paramilitarism and organised crime in our society and its impact on people’s lives.

It is important that we do not see the criminal justice system in narrow terms or as individual agencies doing their bit in silos. We have to view the criminal justice system as being joined up, a single entity. It must be more than simply a spectrum with a crime at one end and someone going to prison at the other. We have to view the criminal justice system as a circle — hopefully, a virtuous circle. What happens in prison can have a bigger impact on community safety than many other interventions. That relates to what we do to rehabilitate offenders and ensure that, when they leave prison, they can return to a normal life and not become repeat offenders.

I will highlight a number of the key areas in the addendum. The issue of a shared future is central to everything that we do in this society. I emphasise that justice is a key actor in that respect. The key contribution that can be made is moving on the debate in this society. In the past, people almost had a sense of security through separation, which has had so many social and economic consequences. We need to reframe that debate and to help people to have a sense of security through sharing. It is important that we look at how we can use the justice system to support other efforts, such as bringing down peace walls and tackling interfaces. Other areas are also important, such as tackling avoidable delay, the integrity of sentencing in respect of public confidence and the support that we give to victims and witnesses. Hopefully, we can return to those issues in future months.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I support the motion. It is significant that we are bringing forward an addendum to the Programme for Government and that we have a local Minister who is responsible and whom we can hold to account to take it forward. Do I have absolute confidence in David Ford? No, I do not. Do I have confidence that he will do a better job than a direct rule Minister? Absolutely.

The Chairman referred to the targets in the addendum to the Programme for Government. The Committee for Justice has discussed those. We do not find everything in the addendum to be particularly stretching, but we are prepared to give the Minister a fair wind. There is a role to be played in identifying real targets that are stretching and challenging. I think that the Minister will agree that the target of 38% confidence in the effectiveness of the justice system is not one that the public will find particularly stretching. I recognise that we are coming from a low baseline, but the Assembly and the Executive need to vastly increase public confidence in the effectiveness of our justice system in Northern Ireland.

I am pleased that a key goal relates to victims. The victims of crime and how they are dealt with, handled, communicated with and informed should be to the centre of any justice system. I welcome that inclusion.

The addendum also touches on the offender management scheme. Let me be clear: if there are prisoners who can be reformed so that they do not commit crimes once they are released from prison, I am all up for their rehabilitation and ensuring that they go back out into the community and do not re-enter prison. We have a system in which repeat offenders are constantly churned round. If we can address that and reform those individuals, I am up for that. However, when people go to prison, they are not there for any good that they have done. The public expect prisoners to be punished. Some prisoners are beyond rehabilitation and cannot be reformed. We must have an effective prison management system that implements a system of punishment for those prisoners. Not everyone can be reformed. I am all up for the reformation of prisoners, but let us remember why they are there in the first place. They are there to be punished. We should not lose sight of that.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for giving way. I am glad that he is elaborating in the way in which he is. It is not a case of either/or; there are those who, all the circumstances and information indicate, are beyond the pale, and they must be punished. However, there are prisoners who can be rehabilitated and are not a threat to society, and that should be pursued as well. It is not a case of either/or, and he is quite rightly pointing that out. Does he agree that we need to see that development? There needs to be punishment on one hand and rehabilitation on the other so that prisoners get the message that, if they are rehabilitated, there is a future for them.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member has an extra minute in which to speak.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Member makes exactly that point very well. I was in Maghaberry prison last week — as a visitor, I hasten to add — and saw at first hand prison officers working with prisoners. They help to identify prisoners as people who can be reformed, and they work with them to give them skills. They do an excellent job. That type of work needs to be taken forward, but the Member makes an important point: there are prisoners who need to be punished. Let us remember why they are in prison.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

No. I want to continue, if you do not mind. I am sorry, Mr Farry.

Mention was made of fine defaulters. The point has been made to me that there are people who go to prison for failing to pay their TV licence. What is the first thing that they get when they go to prison? A TV. Therefore, some prisoner categories are nonsense, and the policy of jailing fine defaulters must be looked at in order to take individuals who should not be in the prison system out of the system. I actually think that imprisonment lets them off the hook too easily. However, other prisoners should be detained for longer. We need to get the balance right.

Stephen Farry said that we got to this point as part of the process of high politics, and that is correct. Up to this point, high politics was at stake, and my party worked hard to ensure that the conditions for the devolution of policing and justice were got right. We ensured that it never reached the point where individuals and a party that we would never support got the justice post, and the Alliance Party got that post. We undid some of the damage. I welcome the Ulster Unionist Party’s commitment now to positively engage with the criminal justice system. That party did damage in 2005 by allowing the possible passage towards that post of an individual and a party that we could not have supported. However, we have got the conditions right. We are now working on the detail. We need to put in place a system in which the public will have confidence. We will play our role in trying to help to build that confidence.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately upon lunchtime suspension. I, therefore, propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm, when the next Member to speak will be Carál Ní Chuilín.

The sitting was suspended at 12.31pm

On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClarty] in the Chair) —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. It is opportune that the Minister brought to my attention the fact that Raymond McCartney was late to the Chamber. Before the Minister pre-empts me, I put on record that Raymond McCartney was at another meeting on, by the way, justice-related matters. Therefore, rather than allow him to be scalded, I apologise on his behalf.

So far, the debate has been fairly rounded, particularly given that so many challenging work-related issues were raised in the Committee for Justice. Given the backdrop to the addendum at Hillsborough, bedding it down during scrutiny will be a challenge for us all. Some themes and areas of concern have been covered, but, when we have the opportunity to subject the addendum to proper scrutiny, there should be less politicking and more detail should be forthcoming. Nevertheless, we welcome the addendum to the Programme for Government and the opportunity to debate it.

I want to cover a couple of issues. I put on record some of what was said in Committee. Like other Members, although possibly in respect of different PSA targets, I believe that some targets are under-ambitious rather than overambitious. Pardon the pun, but we do not want to play safe; we want to get it right for everybody. On the other hand, we do not want to set unrealistic targets. Without fear of contradiction, I want to get that clear.

Raymond mentioned the review that is under way in the jails. I do not wish to pre-empt the outcome of the review, but it is important to put on record that there is already a need for statutory powers for the Prisoner Ombudsman. The Committee has already fed into the review and made representation to that team. In the addendum, under the heading “Reducing offending and dealing with the consequences”, I was glad to see a role for restorative justice, because if the issue is reducing offending and the prevention of crime — Alban Maginness mentioned young people at risk — early intervention and some sort of agreement about restorative justice will help to keep many people, particularly young people, out of the criminal justice system.

I want to touch on the perceptions associated with safer communities. The amalgamation of district policing partnerships and community safety partnerships is one way in which better integration could be envisaged. The Bamford review was mentioned earlier in relation to the mental health of prisoners, and the opportunity that integration could offer in the area of community safety must not be missed. That would encompass the community, statutory involvement and the whole criminal justice family.

Three work areas are important: real partnerships; proper engagement in which people feel that there has been real participation; and, above all else, delivery, which is the area about which we received most complaints when we conducted inter-agency meetings in north Belfast. It is not good enough for politicians and statutory bodies to turn up at meetings and call that participation. What happens at such meetings is all about outcomes and delivery, and there is still a lot of work for us to do.

My party supports the independence of the judiciary and the courts. However, that does not mean that they cannot be removed or excluded from accountability. When people talk about perceptions of safety, they mention topics such as repeat offenders getting bail. However, we will touch on that when we scrutinise the addendum in Committee. Nevertheless, there are real issues that people want us to debate in the Assembly.

I support the motion, welcome the opportunity for debate and look forward to hearing the rest of the contributions.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome the fact that one of the first issues to be addressed in the addendum is the recognition that the first duty of any Government is to provide for the safety of their citizens. It is now incumbent on the Executive, given the serious dissident threat not only in Northern Ireland but in the rest of the United Kingdom, to make every effort to ensure that the budgets for the PSNI and for security are maintained and that police numbers are maintained. That needs to be foremost on the Executive’s agenda and on that of the national Government.

I want to make a couple of points about community confidence and community policing. I welcome the fact that the addendum has recognised the great efforts that have been made to increase community policing in Northern Ireland. That is an important bulwark and framework for the future of the Province, and it is important not to set it back in any way. I welcome the fact that the Chief Constable intends to release more police officers from desk duties to front line duties and, in turn, to community policing.

It is incumbent on the Department of Justice and on the Executive to ensure that policing bureaucracy be reduced. The Government should look at that at a national level to ensure that the police have less need to provide what has in the past, perhaps, been seen as unnecessary statistical information just for the purpose of keeping certain departments, policing boards and other bodies in existence. Such work uses up resources and is manpower-intensive — and woman-power intensive, to be totally inclusive — and I welcome the fact that those issues have been recognised. I hope that the Department will work with the Police Service and others in that regard.

The addendum recognises that legislation is to be introduced to deal with district policing partnerships and community safety partnerships. The Department needs to look seriously at the existing process of establishing district policing partnerships. I know that it has been important to have had that process in place, but although district policing partnerships now cost in excess of £3·5 million a year, that is only part of the bill. District councils throughout Northern Ireland pay the other 25%. The figure is, perhaps, closer to £5 million a year rather than £3·5 million. Some of that money could be better spent on front line policing. There are opportunities now to deal with some of those issues.

It is also critical that the Department look at the role of the Policing Board, which costs some £10 million a year. We must ensure that the Department properly polices the Policing Board. The amount of money spent needs to be policed, given our economic situation.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

The Member must draw his remarks to a close.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I hope that all the issues that I have mentioned will be looked at in the round. I welcome the addendum and support what the Department of Justice will do in the future.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister of Justice for bringing the proposals to the House today. He will be aware of the Justice Committee’s long-standing concerns about the content of his Department’s addition to the Programme for Government. A number of the addendum’s key goals have specific and binding targets, and I hope that the Department can meet, or come close to meeting, them before March 2011.

I am pleased that one of the objectives contained in the addendum is to support efforts to reduce organised crime. Two weeks ago, the Ulster Unionist Party proposed a motion in the House that called on everyone to make Northern Ireland a hostile place for human traffickers. We, as a party, want to ensure that human trafficking remains high on the Justice Minister’s agenda. I am slightly disappointed, therefore, that there is only passing mention of a wish to increase the recovery of proceeds of crime in Northern Ireland, but no details of a specific target. It is vital that, as we make Northern Ireland a hostile place for human traffickers, we pursue their criminal assets. Asset recovery is an important means by which we can punish the perpetrators of those despicable crimes and hit them where it will hurt, namely through their finances. Without profit, the incentive to use Northern Ireland as a trafficking marketplace will reduce significantly.

I am also pleased that the addendum mentions a consultation paper on sentencing guidelines. I am aware that, last week, the Office of the Lord Chief Justice published a provisional list of areas to consider, including domestic violence, people trafficking and attacks on workers and more vulnerable people. Sentencing must act as a deterrent and should express societal condemnation of offensive and destructive acts, and I am pleased that our judiciary is responsive to genuine public concerns and is open to listening to them. I continue to recognise the integrity of judicial independence, and I look forward to seeing what emerges from the consultation.

Each year, about 80,000 people receive legal aid in Northern Ireland, and, as of last year, the total bill was approximately £103 million. The Minister is seeking to drive that cost down. In Northern Ireland, there will continue to be challenges ahead for those who wish to access publicly funded legal aid services. However, we must examine whether a more efficient and targeted legal aid service could provide new opportunities to deliver for those most in need.

I particularly note the review of prisons that is mentioned in the addendum. I am aware that, in light of the two prisoners’ recent escape from custody, the Prison Service is undertaking an additional review. Perhaps the Justice Minister could, during his closing address, provide an update on where that matter rests and assure the House that he will put robust measures in place immediately, even prior to the completion of the review later this month.

The addendum will supplement the current Programme for Government. If we look at the Executive’s main Programme for Government, which was published with a great fanfare in 2008, we quickly realise that the Executive are not on track to meet a significant number of their core targets. In light of the changed circumstances that face Northern Ireland, my party has consistently called for the Programme for Government to be revised and to be made fit for purpose. We consistently highlighted the weaknesses of the current programme, and the Minister proved today that it is possible to reform the Programme for Government. It is a great shame that certain parties in the Executive have refused to countenance responsive government in Northern Ireland.

Conall McDevitt (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

My friend and colleague Alban Maginness concluded his remarks by expressing regret that there was not a single mention of North/South co-operation in the addendum to the Programme for Government. That is a good place for me to start. We know that the Minister has busied himself building cross-border relationships. We support him fully in those actions, and we welcome his determination to ensure that working relationships on this island and, indeed, across these islands, are strong and solid.

However, we need to go a step further. We must understand, as unionist Prime Minister Brian Faulkner understood many years ago, that there may be a case for an all-island intelligence service. Those are not my words, but his. Those conversations should be happening today. As colleagues in the House know, it is a matter of record that the SDLP does not believe that the current arrangements for intelligence in this region are acceptable. The lack of capacity for those arrangements to be accountable to the Minister of Justice is a major omission, not only from the settlement on policing and justice but from the Programme for Government. Therefore, I call on us all to reflect on Mr Faulkner’s words and ambitions.

I agree with Mr Spratt we all face a significant threat, whether we are British Irish, Irish Irish, Ulster Irish or Northern Irish, from a tiny minority of our countrymen and countrywomen who seem determined to drag us back to the past. We share the ambition to meet that threat, so perhaps we should be thinking when we write the next —

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Conall McDevitt (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Yes, of course.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

Does the honourable Member agree that there has always been cross-border co-operation on policing, intelligence and other areas throughout the ages, prior to, and during the days of, the RUC? That continues to this day, and, in fact, North/South and east-west relationships are mentioned in the final paragraph of the document.

Conall McDevitt (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I do not disagree with Mr Spratt. However, it is time to make that co-operation accountable. Although the policing aspects of it are accountable, the security aspects are not. As we have said previously in other contexts in the Chamber, that is a matter of regret for the SDLP.

The opportunity exists to expand the scope of the prison review to make it a fundamental review of prisons. In the past couple of weeks, the Minister, through no fault of his own, has been in the unfortunate situation of having to come to the Chamber with serious news about the ability of prisons to meet the needs of society in 2010. Again, I do not detect any great disagreement across the House on the need to review fundamentally how prisons are run, the prison culture, the terms and conditions under which prison employees are expected to work and the services that we expect them to provide. I ask the Minister to reflect on the terms of reference that he provided to Dame Anne Owers and, perhaps, to give her the opportunity to do what many of us believe that she must be able to do, which is to review fundamentally the role and nature of the Prison Service in this region.

The Minister talked about a shared society, and, only two weeks ago, I was pleased to be able to join him, colleagues from his party and colleagues from the Ulster Unionist Party in the Lobbies in expressing opposition to the cohesion, sharing and integration (CSI) strategy in its current form. I also acknowledge Mr Elliott’s remarks in that regard earlier in the debate.

It is important that, in the Minister’s summation, we hear a clear determination to set a much higher goal than that set by the CSI strategy for a shared society and that, as the Alliance Party’s representative in the Executive, we hear of his determination to continue to put true reconciliation at the heart of everything that we do. Those who are most marginalised in society are most likely to come into frequent contact with the criminal justice system, not necessarily because of what they have done but because of the circumstances into which they were born. It is important that we hear the Minister acknowledge the connection, as I think he will concede exists, between those individuals and poverty.

There is also a connection between those individuals and the most segregated communities in our region. A failure to recognise those connections and that segregation can be, and has been, a contributory factor to social exclusion. We must understand that failure so that we can tackle criminal justice challenges in the generations ahead and build a better future for our young people.

In the brief time that is available to me, I will conclude by talking about young people. It is wrong that we imprison minors in this part of Ireland; it is not right. No other place that we respect does that. I hope that the Minister will clearly indicate his determination to ensure that that practice ceases.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

The Member should draw his remarks to a close.

Conall McDevitt (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

We are happy, as are most of our colleagues, to support the addendum.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The addendum to the Programme for Government states:

“Critical to all the reform of policing and justice in recent years has been a focus on building community confidence.”

That is key and central to our approach to the addendum, to the justice procedure, to the policing procedure and, indeed, to the entire Executive.

For too long and for too many years, the only experience that many people in the nationalist and republican communities had of the justice system was that it was a tool of repression and oppression. We must never allow ourselves to slip back into those times. As we start this journey of dealing directly with justice issues on a daily basis, which is a new experience for many, if not all, in the Chamber, we must focus on the fact that we need to create a system that everyone feels comfortable with and can buy in to and that is accountable and independent. We require the justice system to be independent from political interference but, alas, not from political accountability. That is because, at the end of the day, we are politicians and we are the people in this legislature who make the laws that govern society.

This point has been touched on previously, but if we are to move forward, we need to recognise that, although devolution in itself was an event, the devolution of justice is not. We are involved in a building process. The first few months since the devolution of policing and justice have been tentative, but I think that we have got off to a good start. Fresh ideas are coming from the Justice Minister and the Justice Department. Just as important, the Justice Committee, which meets weekly, is doing a good job. In fact, I must declare an interest as a member of that Committee. As a collective body, the Justice Committee has hit the ground running. It has scrutinised, in detail, the Justice Department’s work and has assisted the Department in developing a programme of work.

Each of the political parties in the Chamber may have different views on what should be in the addendum to the Programme for Government. The document is simply a starting point for rebuilding, reshaping and modernising a justice system that, for far too long, had no accountability whatsoever. A number of areas in the addendum require immediate and effective proposals to be made. We have heard discussions about the prison system and the reasons why people end up in jails and in custody. I concur with Mr McDevitt’s comments about young people: minors should not be in jail. We should not have such scenarios. However, we are not only locking up minors but we are leaving them in jail with no proper care or treatment. At times, we are leaving them in jail with staff who are not properly trained to deal with minors. All those areas need immediate attention.

If I may touch on the broader prison population, the percentage of that population suffering from mental health problems is alarming. Although those people may have committed crimes against society and against individuals and have gone through the judicial process, we, as a caring society, have to ask ourselves why they have ended up in the criminal system. If, as has happened in many of those cases, we, as a society, have let down those people at an earlier stage in their lives and have not put in place proper procedures to deal with the many conflicts that are going on in young people’s lives, we are in one sense guilty of a crime ourselves.

Justice cannot sit at the Executive table as an individual Ministry, and I know that the Justice Minister is not advocating that. If we are to have a successful justice system, we need the Justice Minister to sit at an Executive table, where all the Departments around that table have a collective view on the way forward, not only on how we deal with offenders —

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

— because people who have committed crimes against society or individuals need to be dealt with, but how we ensure that we reduce our prison population, given the fact that we have reduced crime.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

As Question Time begins at 2.30 pm, the House will take its ease until that time. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Tom Buchanan.

The debate stood suspended.

Culture, Arts and Leisure

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Question 1 has been withdrawn.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

2. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure whether his Department has had any contact with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board in relation to the promotion of hurling and hurling matches as part of the wider tourism package for the North Antrim area. (AQO 269/11)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Responsibility for the development of a wider tourism package for the north Antrim area is a matter, in the first instance, for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and the relevant district councils. Responsibility for the promotion of hurling and hurling matches as part of that package rests with the governing body of Gaelic games, the Gaelic Athletic Association. I can confirm that none of those bodies has contacted my Department on that matter. However, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure consulted DETI on the development of its recently published Sport Matters strategy. That strategy recognises the potential contribution that sport can make to tourism and the local economy, and it contains a number of targets and actions that are designed to promote Northern Ireland to tourists as a world-class venue for a range of sports and sports events.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. The GAA in Ulster commands a membership of over 250,000, has over 100,000 active players and is a key economic driver. Sports that are played in other countries, such as baseball, basketball, Australian Rules and pelota, which is played in parts of Spain, are marketed at tourists, so I believe that DETI has responsibility for promoting hurling here. Does the Minister agree that hurling is a unique and indigenous sport and that we should be signposting tourists to it and, in particular, games such as the recent Loughgiel v Cushendall match? That would help to generate revenue for not only that part of the sports industry but the wider economy.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

We have a very wide range of sports in Northern Ireland. I am sure that we would agree that all those sports have a role to play in our tourism product.

Declan O'Loan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I acknowledge what the Minister said about the contribution that all sports make to tourism, and, in putting the remainder of my question, I do not minimise the contribution that other sports make. Does the Minister agree that the GAA offers particular sporting, cultural and educational benefits to the community, and, recognising that, what co-operation and assistance does he feel that he can offer to the GAA?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The responsibility for the promotion of hurling lies, in the first instance, with the governing body of the sport, the GAA. However, Sport Northern Ireland is responsible for the development of sport in Northern Ireland, including the distribution of funding. I will take the example of north Antrim; Sport Northern Ireland has provided £556,293 to hurling clubs in the north Antrim area, namely Glen Rovers GAC in Armoy, St Mary’s GAC in Ahoghill and Dunloy GAC.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

Although the benefits of sporting events can and should be of immense value to our tourism market, does the Minister share my grave concern that unionists are, by the constitution of the GAA and the rules therein, excluded and prohibited from membership of that sporting organisation? Will the Minister call for those unacceptable rules to be amended by that organisation as a matter of urgency to reflect the shared and better future that we should all be striving for in today’s Northern Ireland?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member raises a very important point. There is a general commitment and recognition in society now that a shared and better future is the best way forward in Northern Ireland. In the past, I have commended the professionalism and efficiency of the GAA in how it manages its organisation and activities. I recognise the importance that many in the community attach to the GAA and the value that they place on the sports that it runs. However, I agree with the Member that there is a difficulty, and I have raised it with the GAA and Sport NI in the past; it is not something that I raise today for the first time. As the Member made her point, I noticed that some Members on the other side of the Chamber seemed to be in a state of deep denial. However, rule 1.2 sets out the basic aim of the GAA very clearly:

“The Association is a National Organisation which has as its basic aim the strengthening of the National Identity in a 32 County Ireland through the preservation and promotion of Gaelic Games and pastimes.”

In other words, it places the games as a means to an end. That also needs to be taken in the context of rule 2.1 on membership, which states:

“Membership of the Association shall be granted only by a Club, to persons who subscribe to and undertake to further the aims and objects of the Gaelic Athletic Association, as stated in the Official Guide.”

That quote comes from the current rules, which I think were approved in July. In other words, it states that, to play the games, whether Gaelic football or hurling, and be a member of a club, people have to subscribe to the basic aim, among the other aims, that has the aspiration of a united Ireland. Therefore, people who are from a unionist tradition and do not subscribe to that particular political aspiration find themselves excluded from participation in those games. [Interruption.]

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Order.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The GAA needs to address that issue if it is to contribute, as it could, to a shared and better future. It would be better if some Members faced up to that with a little bit of honesty and humility rather than engaging in the practice of denial. We must look at how we can address the issue and move forward for the benefit of not just the GAA but all society in Northern Ireland. It is possible to be a Protestant and play Gaelic games. However, according to the rules, it is not possible to be a unionist and play Gaelic games.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I listened carefully to the very long reply that the Minister has just given. To lift the discussion above the parochial, does he agree that tourism should be customer-focused? With that in mind, what mainstream international sports with large international followings does his Department promote as the basis for sports tourism in Northern Ireland?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

In all these matters, there is a crossover between DETI and DCAL. DETI’s role is to promote Northern Ireland as a tourist destination through events and other means and, to some extent, product development. DCAL’s role is to develop sports. One of the benefits that flows from that is, of course, that sports are a tourist attraction. The Member spoke of sports that have an international attraction. One of the most popular sports internationally is, of course, football. This is an opportunity to wish our team well this afternoon —

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

The national team.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I am glad that the Member emphasised that point; he saved me the need to do so. Our national football team is in the Faroe Islands, and we all wish them well. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber would want to wish that national football team well.

We need to develop the locations for sport. We need to get the stadium development right, an issue on which we are working. We also need to increase the professionalism of our sporting organisations, and there is work to be done on not just one but a number of organisations. If we can get those things right, it will be an area in which there is potential for growth. We will not see the heavy industries of the past in Northern Ireland again in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we need to look at areas such as the creative industries and cultural tourism as the way forward economically.

Tommy Gallagher (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

3. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure for his assessment of the potential job losses within his Department as a result of the anticipated budget cuts. (AQO 270/11)

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

6. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure if he has taken any steps to protect employment through the reprioritisation of his budget. (AQO 273/11)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take questions 3 and 6 together.

As a planning exercise, DFP has asked the Department to present proposals for cumulative savings of between 4% and 5% to current budget for each year of the four-year period 2011-12 to 2014-15. That represents a first step in a process that must take account of the Treasury announcement on 20 October, which will determine the level of savings against the NICS block as a whole and a number of Executive decisions, primarily on how those savings will be allocated across Departments in Northern Ireland. Only when that point is reached will we have clarity on the implications for jobs in DCAL and its arm’s-length bodies.

At this stage of the Budget 2010 process, no steps have been taken to protect employment through the reprioritisation of DCAL’s budget. However, the Department recognises the direct impact that job losses would have on the economy. The Department is working through scenarios that would deliver the savings proposed by DFP in its planning exercise and will consider their effects on employment in the context of the wider economy. The challenge for my Department and its arm’s-length bodies will be to try to reduce the impact of any budget cuts on jobs, by working together in a more collaborative way, sharing services and assets and generating additional income when possible.

Tommy Gallagher (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Does the Minister agree that a good place to begin making savings is to cut bonus payments to members of quangos that are under his Department, or does he feel that he can continue to justify the payment of bonuses of the order of £15,000 to some quango members?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member referred to quango members. I assume that he means members of boards, because that is what that term applies to. I am not aware of any board members who get £50,000 bonuses. Most members of boards —

Tommy Gallagher (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

£15,000.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I am not aware of that figure in respect of a bonus. If the Member can provide me with some information on that, I will come back to him, but I am not aware of a figure of £15,000.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

In view of the proposed cuts, does the Minister have any plans to liaise with local councils? Many of their workers will be made redundant if the cuts go through.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

My responsibility must be for the Department, for the arm’s-length bodies associated with the Department and for the organisations funded through some of those arm’s-length bodies. Our responsibility in that regard is sufficiently wide to take up all our attention. Therefore, I suggest that issues of employment in local authorities may be directed towards another Department.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

4. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure for an update on the upgrade of Windsor Park and any discussions he has had with the Irish Football Association regarding the upgrade. (AQO 271/11)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Through Sport NI, my Department appointed consultants to undertake the outline business case for stadium development. Having assessed the proposals, together with other options, it was concluded that the most economically advantageous option for regional stadium development for football is to redevelop Windsor Park stadium to increase its capacity of 13,500 to accommodate 18,000 spectators. That would involve significant refurbishment of the north and west stands and redevelopment of the east and south stands. The option would also include the provision of premium seating, big screens and improved access to the new stadium via the Boucher Road.

Throughout the process, there have been ongoing discussions with the Irish Football Association and other governing bodies regarding future stadium development. That includes a meeting that I held with all the governing bodies together at the outset of the process. Members may wish to note that, in the interim, my Department, through Sport NI, has funded safety measures at Windsor Park, so that international football can continue to be played there this autumn. I had an opportunity to see that work at first hand when I attended the 2012 European Championship qualifier match on Friday night. It was a great match, and I was delighted that Northern Ireland held its own against Italy to gain a valuable point. I am sure that we will want to take the opportunity to wish the Northern Ireland team — our national team — well again.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

It says that in the notes.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

It does not actually.

The match was played in front of 15,150 fans, with reports of some fans being unable to get tickets for the match. That demonstrates the potential market for international football in Northern Ireland, which relates to a supplementary question that was asked previously, and it shows the potential and the demonstrable need to increase the capacity of our national football stadium. Nevertheless, I am conscious of the impending outcome of the comprehensive spending review. As for any of my Department’s activities, funding will be subject to the normal budgetary and approval procedures. Although I will continue to fight for funding for stadium development, it will be an Executive decision whether the required funding will be found. I do not underestimate the difficult decisions that the Executive will need to take on future funding across all areas of public expenditure.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

I have been a regular spectator at Windsor Park for more than 50 years. I was at the previous match between Northern Ireland and Italy in 1958, when we beat them 2-1. I am delighted with the team’s recent success.

My problem is the IFA. I am continually embarrassed by its antics. Can the Minister assure the House that no money will go towards the redevelopment of Windsor Park until there are fundamental changes in the IFA?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I have said quite a bit about the IFA in the past number of months, and I have made the position clear. I am sure that the IFA is a concern to many people. The IFA needs to regain the confidence of the wider football community, the Government and the public. It cannot be overemphasised that the IFA needs to have a full, rigorous and independent review of its structures and governance arrangements. It is only on the basis of such a review that new fit-for-purpose governance arrangements can be designed and implemented. I hope that that message is taken on board.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

There is constant interference with the sound system. I ask those of you who have your phone switched on in the Chamber to switch it off immediately.

Billy Leonard (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mr Wilson referred to the IFA’s “antics”. Will the Minister assure the House that, if those antics preclude the association from delivering on its stadium plan and if money is available, they will not hold back the plans of the two other codes — the GAA and rugby — to proceed with their stadium proposals?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

My Department has been working, with Executive agreement, on regional stadium development as a three-sport package. That is how it should continue. When the necessary approvals have been received and the funding allocated by the Executive, the readiness of all three sports to proceed will be assessed. By that time, I would expect the IFA to have taken the necessary steps to strengthen its governance arrangements. If that is not the case, the way forward will be reviewed and taken to the Executive for consideration. I am committed to providing all three sports with fit-for-purpose stadiums that will enable them to move with confidence into the future and to enhance and develop sports across a range of levels.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

I note the Minister’s previous answers, and I thank him for those. Will funding be available to take forward the stadium options at the level proposed in the outline business case?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The consultants’ examination of the various stadium options was predicated on an indicative £110 million being available to government as its contribution to the overall capital costs. That was the expenditure figure that the Executive noted on 1 June 2009 as being the funding required to progress the process on which we are currently embarked. Members will, of course, be conscious of the impending outcome of the comprehensive spending review. Funding will be subject to the normal budgetary and approval procedures, as is the case for any of the Department’s activities. It will be an Executive decision whether the required funding can be found to enable the long-standing and much-debated issue of stadium provision to be resolved satisfactorily.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

I declare an interest as a former chairperson, director and shareholder of Glenavon Football Club. How does the Minister respond to the concerns among the club’s supporters that his provision of £30 million investment for Windsor Park and an annual payment of £220,000 for IFA usage make it impossible for it and other local clubs to have a level playing field when, compared with Linfield Football Club, they are being disadvantaged?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

That is primarily a matter for the IFA and Linfield Football Club to determine. Nevertheless, it is crucial to the development of a regional stadium for football in Northern Ireland. The IFA and Linfield have been in discussion about the agreement and have reached broad consensus on the way forward, although that has still to be formally submitted to my Department. It is important that a fair compromise be reached. Linfield Football Club, as owner of the ground, is entitled to a fair and reasonable return for allowing its ground to be used, but any deal has also to be fair to the wider football community.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

5. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what steps he is taking to help to address the current funding deficit of Special Olympics Ulster. (AQO 272/11)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

In September 2008 my predecessor, Gregory Campbell, and ministerial colleagues from the Department of Education, the Department of Health and the Department for Social Development were invited by the junior Ministers at the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to attend a presentation by Special Olympics Ireland on the Special Olympics Ulster operational plan for 2008-2011. After the presentation, it was unanimously agreed that further consideration would be given to supporting Special Olympics Ulster’s proposals and to which Department of those that will benefit from its activities should take the lead.

The Ministers and junior Ministers involved agreed that DCAL would assume the lead role for the commissioning and development of a business case on behalf of all the Departments. The business case would examine the case for the funding of Special Olympics Ulster and how it contributed to the objectives of each Department. That business case has been completed and assessed by my Department’s economists as meeting the technical requirements of appraisal. However, approval of the business case requires the question of affordability to be dealt with. The sum of government funding identified in the business case as being required to fund Special Olympics Ulster in the counties of Northern Ireland over four years is significant. Consideration will also have to be given to how funding will be utilised and whether it is entirely necessary in the context of the organisation’s activities and other sources of funding.

I have forwarded the business case to relevant ministerial colleagues suggesting that, together with DCAL, the Departments make equal contribution towards the cost of funding Special Olympics Ulster over four years. The affordability of the business case can be fully assessed only when all ministerial colleagues have responded.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Given the work that Special Olympics Ulster does — it is recognised throughout the Chamber — is there not an onus on the Minister, as Minister of the lead Department, to call a cross-departmental meeting of all the other Ministers?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

As I said, I have written to all the Ministers asking them to set out their position and put it on record so that we know where we stand. I am awaiting some replies; I have not got all of them back yet. It is important that we get them back, as we will know where we stand with each Department and will be in a position to move forward. I hope that that will elicit responses from all Ministers very soon.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the Minister’s statement. In recognising the contribution that Special Olympics Ulster makes to Northern Ireland, is the Minister disappointed by the Health Minister’s reluctance to come on board in supporting this project? Could he outline what meetings he has had with other colleagues? Has he written to the Health Minister expressing concern at his refusal to fund the project?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The position is this: when the Ministers and junior Ministers agreed to examine the funding request from Special Olympics Ulster, they were generally supportive in principle of the establishment of a central fund that the Department could draw on to support Special Olympics Ulster. Following my letter to the relevant Ministers and junior Ministers, which was sent on 31 August, I have so far received responses from the Minister for Social Development and the Minister of Education. The Minister for Social Development has agreed to provide funding this year and has agreed in principle to provide funding for the subsequent three years, depending on the outcome of the current Budget process. The Minister of Education has agreed that her Department is ready to play its role in contributing to Special Olympics Ulster in conjunction with other Departments. I await responses from the Health Minister and the junior Ministers of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

Allan Bresland (DUP, West Tyrone)

To date, how has Special Olympics Ulster managed financially? Is its request for funding purely a replacement for current funds?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Historically, Special Olympics Ulster has been funded through Special Olympics Ireland fund-raising activities and through moneys received from the Irish Sports Council. The business case shows that the total funding received by Special Olympics Ulster to cover the nine counties of Ulster in 2009-2010 was £996,000. That is approximately £4 million over a four-year period. The business case states that funding from the Irish Sports Council is susceptible to public sector budgetary cuts in the Republic of Ireland and the level of income required through fund-raising can no longer be maintained. Without the historical levels of fund-raising and the allocated funding from the Irish Sports Council, Special Olympics Ulster will not be financially sustainable.

The recommended option in the business case is that the Northern Ireland Government provide Special Olympics Ulster with a secure funding stream to allow it to take forward its programme of activities for a four-year period. That would involve providing £2·66 million of government funding over that period to supplement a projected fund-raising income of £1·36 million. That would be a total of £4 million over four years for the six counties of Northern Ireland. That apparent rise in funding levels will need to be further discussed with Special Olympics Ulster.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Does the Minister agree that it would be an absolute disaster if, for the sake of a very small amount of money and the determination of some Departments, Special Olympics Ulster was not able to provide for the disabled athletes of Northern Ireland? I am glad to hear that DSD has put its hand in its pocket, but other Departments need to act similarly so that Special Olympics Ulster can maintain its good work and provide those athletes with an opportunity to go to the Olympics in the future.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Thank you for your brevity, Mr McCarthy.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Kieran McCarthy must be a very wealthy man if £2·66 million is a small amount of money for him. I agree with the Member that it would be disappointing if some people did not honour their obligations in that regard. All the relevant Departments need to take that forward together.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

7. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what steps he has taken to build a pool of talent for the 2012 London Paralympics. (AQO 274/11)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Responsibility for building a pool of sporting talent in Northern Ireland in preparation for the 2012 London Paralympic Games rests, in the first instance, with the governing bodies of the sports eligible to compete in the games. I have, however, recently published a new 10-year sports strategy for Northern Ireland entitled ‘Sport Matters: The Northern Ireland Strategy for Sport and Physical Recreation, 2009-2019’. Sport Matters contains targets that are designed to support the identification and development of a Northern Ireland pool of talented athletes for the 2012 London Paralympic Games and future games.

As part of the delivery of Sport Matters, Sport Northern Ireland, which is responsible for the development of sport, including the distribution of funding, recently opened a new athlete investment programme. That programme, which was previously called the athlete support programme, is designed to assist sports governing bodies in supporting their most talented athletes. Such athletes can include those hoping to compete at the 2012 London Paralympic Games. In addition, Sport Northern Ireland, with the support and assistance of partners and stakeholders, has helped to establish a network of strategically located and specialised support services and facilities throughout Northern Ireland. Such services and facilities include the Sports Institute for Northern Ireland at the University of Ulster at Jordanstown and three local performer development centres in Belfast, Lisburn and Cookstown. All are capable of supporting talented athletes who are eligible to take part in the Olympic and Paralympic competitions.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his detailed answer. There are 20 Paralympic sports. In how many of those will Northern Ireland compete? What size does the Minister estimate the Northern Ireland contingent will be at the 2012 Olympics?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Over the past two years, we have had, I think, 13 Paralympic athletes who would be eligible to compete in the London 2012 Paralympic Games. They have received support from Sport NI. Five of those athletes compete in swimming, one in rowing, three in gymnastics, two in basketball and two in athletics.

Health, Social Services and Public Safety

Allan Bresland (DUP, West Tyrone)

1. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for his assessment of the effectiveness of the provision of residential care and domiciliary care for the elderly. (AQO 283/11)

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

With the fastest growing elderly population in the UK, residential care, domiciliary care and nursing home care for the elderly are pivotal health and social care services. I have increased my investment in those key services by £58 million overall in the current CSR period, and in the ‘Survey of Home Care Service Users Northern Ireland 2009’, which was published in August 2010, almost nine out of 10 respondents rated the service that they received as being either good or very good. It should also be noted, however, that the latest indications are that trusts are now experiencing difficulty in maintaining services within budget. That underlines the importance of maintaining levels of funding for health and social care to meet the ongoing needs of an increasingly elderly population.

Allan Bresland (DUP, West Tyrone)

Does the Minister agree with me and with Age Northern Ireland that we need a review of how care is paid for and delivered?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Care is delivered and paid for through the health and social care budget. We are paying substantial amounts of money for domiciliary care, nursing home care and residential care as part of our elderly care budget, which, after hospital services, is the second largest area of spend. Members will also be aware that I launched regional access criteria for domiciliary care in 2008 to formalise the process of assessing care and care needs. That is the way in which we have gone forward. The will of the House is required to provide adequate funds for the need. That is an area of huge concern for me.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Does the Minister agree with me that 17 weeks is too long a time for a patient to have to remain in hospital because no domiciliary care arrangements have been put in place? I do not believe that that represents a good saving for hospitals. The patient’s doctor in the hospital said that he was not fit to go home until he received a care package, yet that package could not be provided for 17 weeks. Does the Minister agree that a review of domiciliary care is needed?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I certainly agree that 17 weeks is far too long. I am not aware of the particular case to which the Member refers, but if she would care to write to me, I will get an answer for her as quickly as possible.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Does the Minister believe that the Commissioner for Older People will play a key role in ensuring that some of the scandalous treatment, particularly neglect, that takes place in a minority of care homes is tackled effectively and reduced significantly? Perhaps he will outline how he foresees his Department relating to the Commissioner for Older People.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I am not au fait with the specific cases about which the Member is talking. I have an organisation called the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA), which carries out inspections throughout the entire system. Of course, in situations in which we have vulnerable adults, particularly the frail and the elderly, it is important that they receive the appropriate standard of care, and that that care is provided with dignity and respect. I take the issue very seriously. As a result, a series of unannounced inspections takes place, and we look to monitor the entire estate as best we can. Members will be aware that nursing homes are provided by private concerns and not directly by the health and social care system, but we do play an active role in policing the entire constituency.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Does the Minister share my view that the Public Health Agency has a vital role to play in promoting better health right throughout life, particularly in our elderly population, and that that could be vital in improving health and in helping people in their latter years to live independently for as long as possible?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Mr McCallister will be aware that I set up the Public Health Agency specifically to address health inequalities and the effects of a person’s postcode on determining life expectancy. The agency is also responsible for other areas.

The elderly are the largest growing section of our population. It is the fastest growing population in the UK. It is a fact that the elderly require more support from the Health Service than any other section of the population. If one looks for a benchmark of how well the Health Service is working, one sees that life expectancy in Northern Ireland is extending all the time, and thank God for it. However, that means that we have an increasingly elderly population that requires support, and that support has a revenue consequence. Investment is required to provide that support. I do not believe that any of us would want to walk away from that. I increased the budget in that area to deal with the demographic increase over the past three years. However, the current prospect of the future that I am looking at is a dire one.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety how the increase in the health budget over the last three years compares with that in England. (AQO 284/11)

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Looking at my revenue budget, I see that, over the past three years, my Department got less than 1% above inflation per annum, compared with 3·4% in England. That is equivalent to £640 million over the CSR period or £300 million per annum. According to Treasury public expenditure statistical analyses (PESA) data, the English capital budget grew by 43% over three years to 2009-2010, while growth in Northern Ireland was only 12%. Scotland and Wales grew by 36%. Those figures should not surprise anyone in the Assembly: despite my best effort, that was what was voted for.

If historic underfunding is not tackled now, the gap between what is available here and in the rest of the UK can only widen, leaving Northern Ireland with a second-rate service. No Health Minister could accept that, and I have argued and will continue to argue for additional funding from the Executive.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his response. The response highlights a concern that I initially raised in my speech on the Budget. Will the Minister agree that that previous underfunding supports the case for ring-fencing the Department’s budget for the next year?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I completely agree with Mr Wilson. We have historic underfunding. We also have cost pressures looking forward. Let us remember that the CSR period is for four years and project where we will be four years from now, particularly with our growing elderly population. The population is also growing due to our high birth rate. So, demand is rising all the time, and it is not a demand that we can walk away from.

We have a social contract with the people here to provide health and social care free at the point of delivery, and we have to have the support to do that. Activity is dependent on the revenue provided to fund it. Without that funding, that activity will fall, because we have a monopoly on health provision as far as the state is concerned. There is nowhere else to go, and that means pain and distress for our population, and a worse situation.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister referred to the historic underfunding in the Health Service, which we all accept. He also referred to the current pressure on the health budget. However, will he not agree that his Department’s continuing to pay large consultants’ bonuses is putting further pressure on the health budget?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

First, we do not pay consultant bonuses. I assume that the Member is referring to the Clinical Excellence Awards. That is a UK-wide scheme to which we contribute, and that is an historic situation. The three devolved Administrations wished to review the scheme some time ago, but the Health Secretary in London did not want to go forward with that. Since the change of Government, we have agreement to review the scheme.

That is about supporting clinical excellence and innovative approaches to healthcare. As far as the underlying situation is concerned, there is simply not enough money in the health budget to fund the Health Service that we require. The gap between us and England is about £600 million and will continue to grow. A projection of the situation in four years’ time shows a considerable deficit, and we will be unable to fund health and social care to the standard that our population requires. It is not just me who says so. The medical profession, nursing profession, unions, clinicians, GPs and doctors will all tell you exactly the same thing.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Minister reflect on the levels of need in Northern Ireland compared with those in England and Wales? How will our approach to the comprehensive spending review impact on that situation?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Historically, health has been underfunded. The Appleby review, which was carried out some five years ago, found that our need for healthcare was 10% greater than that in England and that our need for social services was 35% greater. The review recommended that we take a number of steps. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety took all the recommended steps, a number of which were to increase efficiency. The review also recommended that an increase of 4·3% in revenue in real terms per annum was necessary to close the gap. That recommendation was directed to the Department of Finance and Personnel, but it was not taken forward.

This year, in real terms, the increase in the funding of the Department, which funds the Health Service, is 0∙01%. Given that the demand for hospital services rose by12% last year and by 9% the year before, everyone can see the stress.

Declan O'Loan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

The Minister, in that answer and frequently in the past, has commented on the greater level of need here. Over the past three and a half years, what progress has been made on reducing that need? Can he cite any objective measures that provide evidence of improvement?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Let me give an example: we have a 25% pro rata smaller spend on mental health than in England, but a 25% greater need. From my implementation of the Bamford review’s recommendations, the Member will be aware of the emphasis that I place on mental health and learning disability. That is how we sought to satisfy need. However, the fact is that we need much more revenue and investment, not only to deal with the historical underfunding but to be able to tread water and keep ourselves on a level playing field.

I also set up the Public Health Agency. It takes a hard look at health inequalities and presses down on the issues that create them. Not least among those issues is the incidence of alcohol, tobacco and drug addiction. The Member will be aware of other strategies that I put in place, such as the New Strategic Direction for Drugs and Alcohol 2006-2011 and the Addressing Young People’s Drinking in Northern Ireland action plan. Those are measures that I have taken on some issues; there are others.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Question 3 has been withdrawn.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

4. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety if he can confirm that negotiations are ongoing between the various agencies on the provision of improved health facilities in Carrickfergus. (AQO 286/11)

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

As part of the business case process, a number of discussions have taken place between the Department, the trust and various agencies. As the Member is aware, my Department faces huge financial pressures on its capital and revenue budgets. When the position becomes clearer, I will have to look closely at my entire capital budget, before deciding which projects will be delivered and the time frame for completing those schemes. Such projects include the development of any new health and care facilities in Carrickfergus,

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

I declare an interest as a councillor and chairman of Carrickfergus Borough Council estates management committee. There is a fear locally that things have gone quiet. However, the Minister is aware of the enthusiasm and desire of local government to participate as landowners and potential partners in any future scheme. Will the Minister ensure that the lines of communication are improved and maintained to the highest level during future negotiations?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I am happy to give that assurance to Mr Hilditch. I am aware of his interest, and he of mine, in the project because of the partnership element with local government in taking forward primary care. A health and care centre is one of the important tools for making progress in primary care. I am happy to keep the Member up to date.

It was my intention to go forward with that project, as it was with others. However, everything is now on hold pending the capital allocation that we receive, and we have heard different reports about major cuts to the capital allocation. Members will also be aware that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) did comparatively badly on capital for the first three years of the investment strategy for Northern Ireland but gained somewhat in the following three years. I am looking closely at that to ensure that DHSSPS makes gains, but we have to await the outcome of the CSR.

Gerry Adams (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

5. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for his assessment of any significant difference in the rates of suicide across constituencies over the last three years and whether he is going to ring-fence funding for suicide prevention and awareness in the 2011-12 financial year. (AQO 287/11)

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Over the past three years, the rate of suicide in the constituencies of North Belfast and West Belfast has been 64% higher than the Northern Ireland average. Social disadvantage is linked to a higher risk of suicide, and those constituencies contain some of the most deprived wards in Northern Ireland. Addressing social disadvantage requires co-ordinated action by all Departments that have a role in tackling health inequalities. Although the health and social care budget for the new CSR period 2011-15 has not been finalised, I intend to ring-fence funding for suicide prevention for 2011-12.

Gerry Adams (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for that very clear answer. Is he aware of reports that up to a dozen young people have taken their own lives in the past months, including in recent days? Does he know that there are 30,000 citizens in the Colin area, 52% of whom are under 18, and only one family support worker is available for one day a week? Does he agree that that is totally inadequate to deal with a crisis? Will he commit to rectifying that?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I am well aware of Mr Adams’ points about the challenge that we all face in dealing with the issue. Members will be aware that my Department has a Protect Life strategy and fund. One key area that we fund is the community and voluntary sector and the work that it does on the ground. I will look at the Colin Glen area to see what facilities are available through the community and voluntary sector.

A number of measures are in place, not least Lifeline, and I have made several points on the issue before, including the need for all-Ireland action. I have said on many occasions that if there were a better way to proceed, or a cleverer or more promising innovation to take forward, I would be happy to do so. The board that implements the Protect Life strategy, which addresses these issues in particular areas, is thoroughly representative of the constituency, but I share the Member’s concerns.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for his answers and the commitment that he has shown to the matter. The Níamh Louise Foundation is based in my constituency. It works closely with children and people who have attempted suicide, and with those families that have had to suffer the outcomes of losing a family member who has committed suicide. Does the Minister agree that an important role can be played in our education system where organisations such as the Níamh Louise Foundation and others can go into schools and speak openly with pupils? Will he commit to raising the matter with the Minister of Education?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

The Minister of Education is a member of the inter-departmental group that works on suicide prevention. Therefore, my Department and the Department of Education have routine conversations on the issue. I agree that education has an important role to play. I believe that the Minister of Education understands and accepts that, and seeks to take that issue forward. However, I am happy to raise the issue again through the Department, particularly through our Protect Life strategy.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Minister for his replies on this important issue. Will he comment on the number of people who have accessed the Lifeline suicide helpline since its creation in 2008?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Lifeline is 24/7. We took the view that one of the most important issues for people who are in pain or distress and at risk of suicide or self-harm is to be able to talk to somebody. To date, there have been over 200,000 calls, so there has been a huge response to Lifeline and its availability at nights and weekends, and particularly over holiday periods, which is when people are liable to feel most down. The ability to refer individual callers to services is also important, and several thousand referrals have been made through Lifeline. It has been a valuable resource and has helped the situation enormously, but it is clear that we all have much more to do in that regard.

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

The Minister referred to the all-Ireland dimension to mental health. Does he agree that there are significant financial and other benefits to such an approach?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

My emphasis is on what the Member referred to as “other benefits”, which is about being able to support people who are at risk of suicide or self-harm. That is particularly apparent among our young people, as is evidenced by the sorts of incidents to which Mr Adams referred and the close correlation between disadvantage and this tragedy.

Through our all-island action plan, we agreed a number of measures, such as the deliberate self-harm registry pilots and all-island action on information and media and Internet monitoring. There are a number of issues on which working together is good for the population on both sides of the border. That is the key issue. For me, it has never been simply about money; it has always been about how we help those people, particularly those young people, who see no other way out.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

6. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety how many patients in each health and social care trust area are currently still in hospital, after their expected discharge dates, because suitable domiciliary care packages are not available. (AQO 288/11)

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

As at 31 August 2010, 11 patients across Northern Ireland remained in hospital after their discharge date because of the absence of a suitable domiciliary care package. That figure is made up of three patients in the Belfast Trust, four patients in the Northern Trust and three patients in the Western Trust. The remaining patient cannot be made identifiable because of confidentiality reasons.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for that answer. My family benefits from a domiciliary care package, so we absolutely appreciate the packages that have been put in place. I would contest the figures that have just been given to the Chamber. In the Western Trust area, my office in the city of Derry is inundated with families who cannot get their family members out of hospital because they cannot get a care package put in place. When the Minister talks about budgets and the pressure on them, does he not think that it is a waste of public resources having patients being kept in hospital unnecessarily instead of putting domiciliary care packages in place?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I am happy to look into that issue in the Western Trust area because Mrs Bradley and Ms Anderson’s remarks concern me.

The target for complex discharges is 90% within 48 hours. We sit at 87%. I accept the fact that some folks have fallen through the net. I will look hard to see how we can address that. I have provided a budget for care packages for domiciliary care, nursing home care, residential care and other types of care, but we are seriously challenged in some areas to find the funds to provide for the need that is apparent to us. That is one of the issues. The trusts must manage within their budgets, and they have to prioritise those who are at greatest risk. Those are two of the criteria that they need to address.

As I said to Mrs Bradley, I am happy to look at the issue of specific patients for the Member.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I ask Members which part of “switch off your mobile phones” is causing confusion, because the interference in the audio system is constant. Members, please switch off your mobile phones.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Minister, in respect of the Ulster Hospital in my constituency, is it just a perception that a lack of available domiciliary care packages is causing bed blocking? Are you satisfied that domiciliary care providers are responding adequately to stop bed blocking and to prevent other issues arising, including hospital-acquired infections?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I have the breakdown of expenditure, which has risen, and I have the breakdown of the numbers of people in the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust area who receive domiciliary care, and those numbers have also risen.

The key question is, of course, one of addressing need and demand. Those issues must be prioritised and managed within budget. The Member will be aware that my Department’s budget faced a major cut as a result of a recent Budget that went through the House. We also had a cut as a result of swine flu — I asked for £42 million and got £5 million. We then had a further cut this year of £16 million as a result of swine flu, and that was followed by a further cut of £113 million as a result of the emergency Budget. All those cuts have to be managed in-house. If I have to, I can plan for the future, but finding emergency moneys quickly is very difficult. Nevertheless, the figures show that more people are in receipt of domiciliary care in the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust area than was the case last year. The numbers have gone up marginally, and the money has also gone up. The same applies to other areas of care.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

The Minister is well aware that Members find this a very complex matter of great concern. Will he confirm that the average number of domiciliary care contract hours provided to each client each week in Northern Ireland has crept up?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

As I said in my answer to Mr Bresland, we set in place the regional access criteria for domiciliary care in 2008. That was the framework to get a more consistent approach to eligibility, and it is the framework within which we work. For example, although not all patient discharges are complex, for complex discharges, I have set a target of 90% within 48 hours. At 87%, we are marginally below target. On that level, trusts are just about managing to get through on the moneys available. I fear for the future, and I understand that there are individuals who do not get the package that they believe they are entitled to. That is an issue, but it is a matter for trusts to administer according to the criteria laid down.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

7. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for an outline of progress on a new contract for dentists. (AQO 289/11)

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Negotiations are at an advanced stage, and we plan to pilot the new dental contract. The Health and Social Care Board is required to consult before running pilot contracts, and that consultation has now commenced. Pilots will be run in three areas — oral surgery, orthodontics and general dental services — and they will commence after the consultation exercise has been completed and evaluated.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for the detail and clarity on the time frame. Will he confirm that he has a financial package in place to cover that contract completely?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

First, this is a new, stand-alone contract for Northern Ireland. The contract’s priority remains, as it was when I awarded a tender to Oasis Dental Care, to make NHS dentistry accessible to the whole population. Those are the stated objectives. We are moving forward on that, and we will run pilots. We must prove the contract through those three pilot areas.

The Member will be aware that the dental contract in England got into serious difficulties. We want to see a contract that will work. I believe that this offers us a very good way forward — a new contract on the principle of a global sum basis, with reasonable commissioning through the board. That is the way forward.

As far as the moneys required being available in the future is concerned, I will bid for what I believe are the amounts required to deal with demand. It is a matter for the Executive and the House to decide whether they wish to follow.

Assembly Commission

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

1. asked the Assembly Commission which areas of the Stormont demesne are controlled by the Commission and if there are any ongoing discussions to extend these areas. (AQO 297/11)

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

The Assembly Commission controls only the area around Parliament Buildings, which is delineated by steel railings to the front and a chain-link fence to the rear and sides of the building. All the land beyond that boundary is owned and controlled by the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP).

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to Mr Neeson for his answer on behalf of the Assembly Commission. Does the Commission accept that a range of issues, including additional car parking and accommodation, are dependent on the Assembly’s owning a greater proportion of the demesne? Could the template for transferring land that operated for former Army bases be utilised?

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

With respect to the Member’s latter point, the subject is much more complex than Mr Kennedy suggests. I will be coming to the car parking issue later on; there are two questions relating to that. Consideration has been given to approaching DFP with a view to taking over the lower east car park and including it within the Assembly’s boundaries. Those negotiations are ongoing. I shall deal with the whole car parking issue shortly.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

2. asked the Assembly Commission what measures it has introduced to reduce energy use in each of the last three years and how effective these measures have been. (AQO 298/11)

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

In 2009, a detailed review of energy consumption over the past four years, covering 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-2010, was undertaken in order to establish the total energy consumption, energy costs and CO2 emissions of Parliament Buildings. The data was then used to help to identify measures to reduce energy consumption, such as increasing awareness of energy conservation among staff and Members, the replacement of inefficient equipment and fittings, and the completion of specialised energy surveys to identify further opportunities to reduce energy consumption.

Since the introduction of energy conservation measures, namely the energy awareness campaign in 2009-2010, total energy consumption decreased by 3·5%, energy costs by 31% and CO2 emissions by 4% compared to 2008-09 baseline levels. The reductions in energy costs are predominantly due to reductions in wholesale energy prices. The installation of an effective monitoring and targeting system to reduce unnecessary consumption, the replacement of inefficient equipment, and structured, formal staff awareness campaigns are expected to reduce energy consumption by a further 5% to 10% over the next three years.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

I thank Mr Neeson for his response. In 2008, we discussed the possibility of achieving carbon neutrality in the Assembly, and, during the debate, a target to make the Stormont estate carbon neutral by 2015 was referred to. Are we going to reach that target?

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank Mr Wilson for his question. I agree that it is important that we meet major targets on carbon emissions.

However, I remind the Member that the Stormont estate is largely controlled by the Department of Finance and Personnel. The Assembly Commission recognises its responsibility to reduce carbon emissions in Parliament Buildings as far as is possible and will continue to improve as time progresses.

Declan O'Loan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

3. asked the Assembly Commission what action it is taking to improve car parking facilities at Parliament Buildings. (AQO 299/11)

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

9. asked the Assembly Commission when action will be taken to improve car parking facilities at Parliament Buildings for Members and staff, particularly on sitting days. (AQO 305/11)

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 3 and 9 together.

Car parking at Parliament Buildings is a major issue that continually raises it head. The Assembly Commission fully acknowledges the problems and difficulties that people experience with parking, particularly on sitting days. All car parks on the Stormont estate except the upper east and upper west car parks are owned and managed by DFP. Although access to the upper car parks at Parliament Buildings is restricted to Assembly use only, the Assembly does not have exclusive use of the lower east car park, and, therefore, cannot develop that car park or impose any conditions or restrictions on parking in it.

In recognition of the ongoing pressures, the Assembly secretariat has already engaged with DFP to establish whether any other measures can be taken to help resolve the problem. Negotiations are well under way, and DFP has been requested to update the Assembly as soon as possible.

Declan O'Loan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I thank Mr Neeson for his answer. There is considerable pressure on staff and visitors, as he is aware. Given the location of Parliament Buildings, that pressure will continue for some foreseeable time, and, therefore, I welcome what the Assembly Commission is attempting to do. Does he agree that pursuing enhanced car parking arrangements and improved public transport are not incompatible, and that those aims must be pursued in tandem, to use another form of transport? [Laughter.]

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Clearly, car parking is a big issue. However, there is also the question of public transport to consider, as well as the need to encourage people, including Members, to use public transport. We can also, like Conall McDevitt, encourage people to get on their bike.

It is a big issue, and the secretariat will continue to negotiate with DFP on it. A number of options are being examined at the moment, such as how the lower east car park might be improved. The big problem arises on sitting days, and the fact that the lower east car park is used widely by Northern Ireland Civil Service staff has an impact on the problem.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the commissioner for answering my question along with Mr O’Loan’s. How many additional car parks are being planned for the area?

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

The upper car parks currently provide 119 spaces, four of which are reserved for persons with disabilities. The lower east car park provides parking for some 312 cars. At present, there are no plans to develop or expand those car parks, as to do so could be problematic and would require statutory approval, as well as significant works and finance. However, there are other options. We believe that an extra 35 or 40 spaces could be provided in the lower east car park, and we are in negotiations with the Department of Finance and Personnel about that.

We are looking at the possibility of creating car parking on the roadways below Parliament Buildings. That is part of our negotiations with DFP at the moment, and there could be security implications. However, it is a major issue and one that is continually raised at meetings of the Commission. As I said, negotiations are ongoing between the secretariat and DFP.

Alan McFarland (Independent, North Down)

Car parking is but one of the continuing reductions in Members’ privileges that have taken place since the Assembly was established. How many Assembly staff and party staff have parking rights on the Parliament Buildings level?

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I cannot give Mr McFarland an exact number. However, the car parking provision immediately adjacent to the Building is reserved for senior members of staff, staff who have medical problems, and, as I said, there are four car parking spaces for those who have disabilities. I will find out the exact numbers and write to him.

Gerry McHugh (Independent, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I follow in the vein of the Member beside me by asking about the use of the car parks. Has the Commission looked at who exactly uses the car parks? Is there a possibility that many of those who live within a reasonable distance of here, including MLAs, could at least share cars to and from work? It would be easy to deface the pristine landscape of the site by creating further car parks either at the lower or the upper end just to accommodate more vehicles. Therefore, people should look at the options that I mentioned rather than go for the bulldozers again.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I agree, largely, with Mr McHugh. One issue is that there is no car sharing at all among Members. It is important to decide whether to develop car sharing among Members and for staff. However, we are looking at that issue continually. We realise that there is a problem and we are trying to deal with it. However, there are sufficient car parking spaces for all elected Members in the east and west car parks. We will consider the other issues of car parking. There are, clearly, options, and we are trying to sort out the issue with DFP. We will, hopefully, be able to make further progress sooner rather than later.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

4. asked the Assembly Commission for an update on the Assembly’s strategy for engaging with the European institutions. (AQO 300/11)

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

In January 2010, the Assembly approved the report of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister on its inquiry into consideration of European issues. That report contained 17 recommendations, six of which fell within the direct remit of the Assembly Commission to implement. In particular, part of recommendation 3 of the Committee’s report requires the Assembly Commission to develop a European engagement strategy to enhance its engagement with the European institutions in a way that supplements and is complementary to the Northern Ireland Executive’s own strategy on Europe. Having visited Brussels on a fact-finding mission in June 2010 in conjunction with the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, the Assembly Commission, following consultation with a range of stakeholders, expects to consider a draft of the Assembly’s proposed strategy for engagement with the European institutions in November 2010.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank Mr Weir for his response on behalf of the Commission. Mr Weir, like me, is one of the original Members, so he will know that the original Assembly took a great interest in European matters. There appears to be an opinion in the House that perhaps that interest has slipped, now that the Assembly is into its third mandate. Have there been any examples of good practice in European parliamentary institutions that have formed part of our planning and development processes here?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

We are always in a degree of learning experience. As the Member indicated, he and I are drawn from the first Assembly, when we had the advantage of the European Union funding virtually every Member to go across to Europe. I am not sure that, either through the Assembly or, indeed, through Europe, something of that nature would be plausible again. It is important that, where possible, the Assembly learns best practice on its engagement.

In particular, we are trying to draw not only from the European Union but from a range a stakeholders to try to inform the best way forward. When people see the report in November, they will see that we have cast the net widely in the number of bodies with which we have consulted. We have been in contact with the MEPs, people such as Jane Morrice, officials in the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels and a range of other institutions and bodies. We have consulted with just about everyone except for, perhaps, Gamu from ‘The X Factor’, although we may yet include her. If there are examples of best practice and, indeed, lessons to be learned, the Assembly Commission and the Assembly as a whole should be open-minded enough to take those good examples on board and always strive to use the best of international practice.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh mile maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. When looking at areas of best practice, has the Assembly Commission considered talking to people such as Laura Leonard from Belfast City Council’s European unit? I am a member of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and we spoke to a number of stakeholders and were very impressed with the work of Belfast City Council’s dedicated EU unit. She is another person whom one should go to in order to avail oneself of the kind of information and opportunities from which Belfast City Council has been able to draw down in the region of £12·5 million because of its having that dedicated unit.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I am not aware of whether we have spoken directly to Laura Leonard. I am aware that, from the perspective of Belfast City Council, and local government through the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA), constructive work has been done through the Committee of the Regions. Therefore, lessons are to be learned. The Commission has consulted with a wide range of stakeholders, and that list is not exhaustive. As members of the Commission, we are not closing our minds to any information, and the Member’s suggestion is helpful. We are open to suggestions from any Member so that we can get the best route forward.

We will have to bear in mind the lines of demarcation between what the Assembly does and what the Executive’s strategy does. We should be striving for a sense of complementarity and additionality so that the Assembly, particularly in these tough financial times, does not duplicate what the Executive are doing and that both sides of the equation are implementing best practice.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

5. asked the Assembly Commission what action it is taking to promote equality of opportunity and good relations in its work and to ensure that the Assembly is a welcoming place for all communities. (AQO 301/11)

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for North Antrim for the question. The Assembly Commission is designated as a public authority under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and its equality scheme was approved by the Northern Ireland Equality Commission on 27 February 2008. Under the same legislation, the Commission also has a statutory duty to have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious beliefs and political opinions and between racial groups.

The Assembly Commission continues to progress the equality agenda through all areas of business and, in the next few weeks, will submit an annual progress report to the Equality Commission for the period 2009-2010. That report will detail the progress that has been achieved against each of the targets that are set out in our equality scheme and disability action plan, and it also identifies the proposed initiatives that are planned for the coming year to ensure that we improve the outcomes of equality of opportunity and good relations for individuals from the nine categories that are covered under section 75.

I am sure that the Member appreciates that I do not have the time today to go through that plan in detail. However, once it is approved, I will be happy to furnish Mr McKay with a copy. I will, however, draw some of the more salient points to his attention.

One important aspect in this area of work is the continued implementation of the engagement strategy. I am sure that the House will agree that those measures have been extremely helpful in enhancing awareness of the Assembly and in creating opportunities for engagement with the wider public. As well as making Parliament Buildings welcoming, we must, more importantly, make it accessible to everyone, and the Commission approved a range of physical changes throughout the Building to facilitate that.

As regards the specific issue of good relations, the Assembly Commission is committed to promoting good relations between persons of different religious beliefs, political opinion and racial groups and to challenging sectarianism and racism. We approved a good relations action plan on 21 January 2010, and that plan contributes to the corporate objective of promoting good relations, which is stated in the revised 2009 version of ‘The Northern Ireland Assembly Secretariat Corporate Plan 2008/2011’. A good relations consultation document was prepared and made available for distribution to the public on Monday 29 March 2010. In total, 10 consultation responses were received by the Commission Support and Compliance Unit. The Commission is currently considering the results of those consultation exercises.

We are also in the process of conducting an internal good relations audit among secretariat staff and propose to conduct an external good relations audit to identify the barriers or perceived barriers encountered when accessing services provided by the Assembly Commission. It is also our intention to hold a good relations conference with key stakeholders in 2011 to create opportunities for learning and to identify any methods that minimise or remove barriers to the services provided by the Commission.

In conclusion, a great deal of work has already been undertaken, and further commitments will be met to ensure that the Assembly is a welcoming place for all who choose to walk through its doors.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Member for that extremely comprehensive answer. As regards the consultation with the wider public, thousands of people come through the doors of the Assembly every year for visits and tours; I am thinking particularly of local community groups and schoolchildren. What efforts have been made to seek their views? Have any surveys been carried out about them? Is ongoing work being done about the people who come into the Building?