Northern Ireland Assembly, 20 March 2012

297 contributions from 60 members. The official report.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Mr Pat Ramsey has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have up to three minutes to speak about the petition.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Business Committee for allowing the petition to be discussed in today’s plenary sitting. I have the pleasure of presenting this petition, which amounts to 20,000 names, from people right across the constituency and the north-west who are very concerned about the proposed closure of the Woodlands centre. It is a unique centre in the city. It is a speech, language and communications centre and a centre of excellence. A number of parents have travelled all the way here just for these five minutes, but they are an important five minutes in allowing them to make a contribution.

The Western Education and Library Board has stated that it proposes to close the Woodlands centre and to relocate the children to four primary schools across the city. I think that the Western Education and Library Board has lost sight of the real issue, which is to provide a specialist and unique centre of excellence in the city. The petition has been signed by parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts right across the spectrum of the city. As you know, Mr Speaker, you, Raymond McCartney, Mark Durkan and I have attended a series of meetings with parents who have seen their child progressing in the most positive way from when they had difficulties communicating at all to the stage where they can see progression. There is a concern that the move to the primary school sector would dilute completely the entirety of this good service.

I encourage parents, teachers, governors and those in the statutory sector, who, I may add, are not part of the formal consultation with the Western Education and Library Board, to participate and make their opinions known. This is a valuable asset in the unique Belmont setting, with the Playtrail and other elements that can assist the growth of a child.

I am pleased that all MLAs in the city have united behind this. We met the Minister of Education last week, and I am pleased to say that he is in listening mode. He has promised MLAs that, before and when he receives the submissions on the consultation, he will have another meeting to enable the parents, who are here today, to make a formal presentation to him.

It is a shame on the Western Education and Library Board that is using legislation from seven years ago now. Only because of pressure from parents has the board agreed to carry out a formal consultation. As a result of that formal consultation, over a few weeks, the parents from the Woodlands have collected 20,000 names. I commend and congratulate them. They are the champions not only of their own children but of the next generation of children. They see the importance of that. I present this petition, which is hugely important for them. Well done to all the parents involved.

Mr P Ramsey moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I will forward the petition to the Minister of Education and send a copy to the Chairperson of the Education Committee.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

In compliance with the requirements of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make the following report on a British-Irish Council (BIC) social inclusion ministerial meeting, which was held in Cardiff on 7 March 2012. Martina Anderson MLA, junior Minister in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, accompanied me at the meeting and has agreed that I may make this statement to the Assembly.

The British-Irish Council social inclusion group held its fifth ministerial meeting, hosted by the Welsh Government, at the City Hall in Cardiff. At the meeting, Ministers agreed the publication of a comprehensive report on the contribution of the third sector to social inclusion.

The meeting was chaired by Carl Sargeant AM, Minister for Local Government and Communities in the Welsh Government. The Scottish Government were represented by John Swinney MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustain­able Growth. The British Government were represented by Helen Stephenson, director of the Office for Civil Society. The Irish Government were represented by Phil Hogan TD, Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. The Isle of Man Government were represented by the honourable Chris Robertshaw MHK, Minister for Social Care. The States of Jersey were represented by Senator Paul Routier MBE, the Assistant Chief Minister, and the States of Guernsey were represented by Deputy Carol Steere.

Ministers discussed recent developments in promoting social inclusion across the eight BIC Administrations, focusing particularly on issues relating to the contribution of the voluntary and community sector. The value of that contribution is captured in the published report, which contains recommendations on how the third sector can make communities more sustainable and socially cohesive by working together; how we can enable wider civil activity; and how the third sector can become part of the mainstream in service delivery.

Ministers noted the key role of the third sector in delivering flexible and inclusive services in communities. They also acknowledged the work that is being done actively to engage the third sector from an early stage in policy discussions and development in each jurisdiction. Ministers commended the willingness and commitment of the third sector to support the resilience and sustainability of communities and the mobilising of voluntary effort to meet the big challenges facing people in their everyday life. Ministers thanked the third sector in each of the jurisdictions for their active engagement and valued contribution to the rich and shared learning that has emerged from the work of the British-Irish Council.

The work carried out by officials will continue to seek to strengthen and consolidate the ongoing co-operation and exchange of information, experience and best practice between member Administrations. Ministers considered priorities for future work themes and confirmed their interest in early preventative spend. While some advocated that the theme of early preventative spend has a particular focus in the context of an ageing population, others expressed the view that it should be more widely spread, in particular so as not to exclude early years. Officials will prepare a paper for further discussion, and I will consult Executive colleagues on which Department might lead in the next phase of the work. All Ministers welcomed the publication of the report and noted that the next ministerial meeting will take place in Scotland on a date to be confirmed.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement, although I have to say that there is not really a lot of detail in the report. Given the focus on the community and voluntary sector and the substantial asset that that sector is for all of us, will the Minister elaborate a little on what discussion there may have been around the absolutely essential need to make sure that that sector is given adequate support to enable it to continue to be a key sector in our society?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

All the contributors at the meeting acknowledged the importance of support for that sector, not just in terms of direct resources but in terms of good practice through early engagement with the sector, particularly in developing policy. There was a general acknowledgement that the engagement and the resources were important if the sector was to fulfil its potential in meeting the ongoing challenges. One of the things that was touched on was examples of good practice. Of all the areas that we talked about, Northern Ireland is certainly to the fore in the standard and quality of our involvement with the third sector.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his statement. He talked about good practice. Are there specific examples in the report of good practice in the local voluntary and community sector?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

There certainly are. I am greatly encouraged by the many positive illustrations of voluntary and community sector activity throughout the report. It is evident that the sector has a role to play in delivering services that reach into the very heart of our communities. The report contains specific references to two examples in Northern Ireland. One is the work of the Bryson Charitable Group in delivering innovative social enterprises for young people and the elderly and its wider community recycling programme. There is also a reference in the report to the Ashton Community Trust, which is in my constituency. It is promoted as a tangible example of community cohesiveness and sustainability. There are many other examples in the report of innovative, community-led action across the Administrations. I am particularly pleased to see that, across those, there was evidence of faith-based groups working to regenerate local communities through voluntary efforts.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his statement and his words since. He mentioned the Bryson Charitable Group, which is a very large organisation within the private sector, never mind the third sector. I took a briefing recently at which it was said that it had to complete 1,200 A4 pages as paperwork to get just a few dozen young people on to the Steps to Work programme. Does the Minister think that devolved government and its regulations are designed to help and facilitate the third sector to move forward?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member will be aware that the Steps to Work programme falls within the remit of another Department. Our engagement with the third sector is shaped by and based on the concordat between government and the voluntary sector. One of the things being taken forward at the moment is that, in regard to the general work of the voluntary sector, through collaboration with NICVA, we are working to see what can be done to streamline and simplify the requirements that are placed on voluntary sector organisations in securing funding etc and in reporting on that. There is recognition of the need to do that. In fact, when I first took over in the Department, that was one of the things that was raised at the very first meeting that I had with NICVA and representatives of a wide range of voluntary organisations. At a meeting with NICVA, we talked about the challenges to the sector, and that was one of the things that was flagged up. They appreciated the ongoing work to simplify the process.

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

It is disappointing to note that, although our Government, the Scots, the Welsh, the South of Ireland and the islands were all able to send Ministers to the meeting, it appears that the British Government were represented by a civil servant. Given that it was a meeting of the British-Irish Council social inclusion group, was there any discussion of the impact of the British Government’s proposed welfare reform on the jurisdictions that will be directly affected by it?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

That was not the subject of the meeting, but, obviously, it was in the background and in people’s thoughts, particularly for areas that are directly affected by it. As the Member rightly indicated, quite a number of the jurisdictions, such as the islands, would not be directly affected. Likewise, the position in the Republic of Ireland is different. It was in the background, but it was not the subject of particular discussion at the meeting.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for the statement, particularly the part about future discussions on early preventative spend. Has the Minister compared notes with other member Administrations? If so, what lessons can be learned for Northern Ireland, perhaps about what not to do going forward?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The focus was more on good practice than bad practice. We can always learn from mistakes, but you tend not to go to these meetings wanting to broadcast the mistakes. The focus was on good practice, which is why you will see in the report a number of good examples from Northern Ireland. I am not being presumptuous in saying that, if you look across the Administrations, you will see that the standard that Northern Ireland has reached in regard to the voluntary sector is well in advance of the standard reached by most of the others. Nevertheless, there are lessons to be learned. Some examples were given in the course of the discussion. The Welsh Minister made some interesting points about how the Welsh deal with neighbourhood renewal or their equivalent of our programme. There are certainly things that can be learned.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. What measures are the Executive taking to promote social inclusion?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The term “social exclusion” is used to describe what can happen when people are subject to the most severe problems. We deal with that generally through measures such as neighbourhood renewal and other interventions. Social exclusion certainly has to do with poverty and joblessness, but it is about more than that; it is about being cut off from the social and economic life of our community. The Executive are committed to cutting away the roots of social exclusion and preventing the damage happening in the first place. The Lifetime Opportunities strategy describes how government will tackle the problems that reduce social inclusion and will work to prevent their recurrence. OFMDFM co-ordinates that work and monitors progress to identify gaps in provision and to propose initiatives that promote better joined-up working across Departments. Recent initiatives also include the social investment fund and the social protection fund. The development of a new childcare strategy, a disability strategy and an older persons strategy are imminent. All of those will contribute to improving social inclusion, where all citizens have an equal opportunity to participate in the social, political and economic life of the community.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. Welfare reform has already been alluded to, and you have answered that question. The voluntary sector here in the North has highlighted, vociferously in many cases, the inequities of the proposed welfare reform. Do you consider it suitable to discuss the resourcing of the voluntary sector and advice agencies in particular? They will bear the brunt of dealing with the most vulnerable in our society, who will be so adversely affected by the reform.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

As the Member said, I have answered the basic question on the British-Irish Council meeting. His question strays into a slightly wider field, but we will deal a lot with welfare reform over the next 12 months. It will certainly be a challenge, and the voluntary sector has a significant role to play in providing advice and in the work programme, as a range of interventions relate directly or indirectly to welfare reform.

Pam Brown (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. How do his Department and the Executive demonstrate their commitment to supporting the work of the voluntary and community sector?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The new concordat between the Executive and the voluntary and community sector outlines a shared vision of working together as social partners to build a participative, peaceful, equitable and inclusive community in Northern Ireland. The document articulates shared values and principles that underpin relationships between government and the sector. There are 12 specific commitments, which will be key drivers for change and ensure the effective delivery of the concordat. As Social Development Minister, I am required to report annually to the Executive and Assembly on the concordat’s implementation. The first report is due this summer.

The approximately 4,700 active voluntary and community organisations in Northern Ireland employ a paid workforce of almost 27,000. They are supported by a further 88,000 volunteers. A wide range of Departments, agencies and public bodies form working relations with and provide funding to those organisations. In the four years to March 2010, some 6,400 organisations received from public sector bodies 14,500 letters of offer totalling £1·3 billion. Of course, the voluntary and community sector, like other sectors, faces pressures in the current difficult financial climate, and we are striving to maintain vital front line services and minimise budget cuts to other services.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I, too, thank the Minister for his statement, which mentioned the early preventative spend. Does he agree that developing the social economy sector, which he also mentioned, may ensure that early preventative spend is delivered in a way that benefits communities and families?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The theme of early preventative spend was identified only at the most recent meeting. There will, as I said, be some discussion between the Administrations on the exact shape of the work to be undertaken. The exact form of such discussions has yet to be determined. However, it is generally recognised that social economy projects and initiatives will play an important role in the future sustainability of the voluntary and community sector and in delivering services.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagraí. The Minister referred to the discussions about good practice, and I listened carefully to Mr Brady talking about what he referred to as welfare reform. My question concerns advice provision and what lessons can be learned from other jurisdictions. That is particularly the case as we move to a new era, in which many people are loosely referred to as “the new poor”. They are out of work or face reduced hours for the first time. Specifically on welfare reform, I notice that ‘The Guardian’ today reports a massive increase —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to come to his question.

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

— in the number of people going to tribunal because they lost out in the transition from incapacity benefit to ESA. What has been learned, or what potential is there for improving good practice in targeting advice at people who find themselves facing those dilemmas?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The work of the BIC on social inclusion has been ongoing for the past 18 months or so. As I said, welfare reform did not feature particularly. It was in the background and part of the context but not a feature of the discussions. However, it shapes the understanding and approach of particular Administrations.

The area that the Member moves into — advice-giving in relation to welfare reform — is not, I suggest, something that arose particularly in this area but will be very much on the agenda of the Assembly over the next year. As we move forward with welfare reform, it is important that we get good, sound, accurate advice to those in need of it, so that the potential detrimental effects of welfare reform in some areas are mitigated as far as is possible.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his statement and answers so far. Will he outline the benefits to Northern Ireland arising from the BIC ministerial meeting?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I welcome the publication of the report and the work that officials, including our own officials, have taken forward in this regard. The full report is available on the BIC website.

The work of the BIC provides real opportunities for learning and sharing best practice across the Administrations, all of which have different situations and problems. They have certain things in common, but there are significant differences too.

The report that was launched was the result of 18 months of active engagement with voluntary community organisations across the islands, and it sets out real challenges for us. A number of the recommendations are included in the Executive’s new Programme for Government. They include investing in social enterprise growth to increase sustainability in the broad community sector; developing and implementing a policy framework on community asset transfer; providing resources to address dereliction and grow investment in the physical regeneration of deprived areas; and including social clauses in public procurement contracts for supplies, services and construction. Those four areas are included in the new Programme for Government for Northern Ireland, and they are also recommendations found in the BIC social inclusion report.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

What does it say to the Minister and what should it say to this House and the other participants that every Government except the United Kingdom Government sent a Minister to the discussions? What does that say about the status of the east-west relationship? Could the Minister ever imagine mere civil servant representation being thought to be enough in the North/South set-up?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I am sure that the Member will appreciate that there are times for all of us when circumstance or sickness prevents us attending something. This is the first meeting of the BIC that I have attended where that has happened. It is the first. However, I think that all of us would acknowledge, if we are honest about it, that there are times when, even in the most pressing circumstances, an appointment or engagement is one that we have to forgo. The commitment of the UK Government to the BIC is well reflected in the strong representation that there is at BIC meetings on a regular and ongoing basis, meeting after meeting. This was a rare exception.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

I beg to move

That the draft Welfare of Animals (Permitted Procedures by Lay Persons) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 be approved.

The aforementioned statutory rule will, subject to the Assembly’s approval, introduce new provisions on permitted procedures that may be carried out on animals by a lay person. The regulations revoke the Welfare of Livestock (Prohibited Operations) (Amendment) Regulations 1987, which were made under the Welfare of Animals Act 1972.

I will now explain briefly to Members the background to the regulations. The new Welfare of Animals Act 2011, which the Assembly passed last year, contains powers, at section 5, to make it an offence for a person to carry out or cause to be carried out a prohibited procedure on a protected animal.

A prohibited procedure is defined as one that involves interference with the sensitive tissues or bone structure of the animal. The 2011 Act also contains an exemption where any procedure is carried out by a veterinary surgeon for the diagnosis of disease, for the purposes of medical treatment of an animal and any other procedure specified in regulations made by the Department.

Before I commence the powers in section 5 of the Act, to ensure that acceptable procedures such as inserting an ear tag in a cow or a microchip in a dog, which are commonly undertaken by farmers, pet owners etc, remain legal, my Department must set out in these regulations all the procedures that a lay person who is a non-veterinarian will be allowed to undertake. The new regulations will, for the first time, provide clarity by listing all those procedures. The regulations do not include the docking of dogs’ tails, as section 5 of the 2011 Act does not cover that.

The regulations contain a general requirement that all permitted procedures be performed in accordance with any relevant requirement listed in the schedules to the regulations, in such a way as to minimise the pain and suffering that it causes to the animal, in hygienic conditions, and in accordance with best practice. Lay persons undertaking those procedures must have received instruction or have experience in a procedure to the full requirement in the regulations.

A 12-week public consultation was undertaken with stakeholders from 1 July 2011 to 23 September 2011, to which there were 25 responses. Overall, the regulations were welcomed by all stakeholders, and there was significant support for the vast majority of the proposals in them. The consultation proposed that all procedures that had historically been allowed to be carried out by lay persons should continue to be allowed, with the exception of the hot branding of horses. The proposal to ban the hot branding of horses was welcomed and supported by all respondents to the consultation.

The responses to the consultation led to a review of the policy in relation to some outdated methods of identification, now that microchipping is widely accepted as a reliable method of identification. Therefore, the ear clipping of any species, the ear notching of pigs and the tagging of cats and dogs have been removed from the draft regulations and will be banned. In addition, since the consultation, the implantation of a subcutaneous hormone has been added to the list of permitted procedures for sheep.

I am pleased to say that when the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee considered the regulations on 15 November 2011, and again last week on 13 March, it indicated that it was content for the regulations to be brought before the Assembly. I am grateful to the Chair and members of the Committee for their support for the regulations. I commend the motion to the House.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion, which seeks to affirm the Welfare of Animals (Permitted Procedures by Lay Persons) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012.

The Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, passed by the previous Assembly, makes it an offence to carry out a prohibited procedure on a protected animal. A prohibited procedure involves interference with the sensitive tissues or bone structure of an animal. To ensure that the acceptable procedures commonly undertaken by lay persons such as farmers and pet owners remain legal, the regulations set out all the procedures that may be carried out by a lay person. The regulations will provide clarity by listing all those procedures that are acceptable for a lay person to perform; they will also provide clarity around the definition of a lay person.

The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development considered the proposal as an SL1 on 15 November 2011 and indicated that it was content with its policy merits. The Committee further considered the statutory rule on 13 March 2012 and resolved that it be affirmed. I can confirm that the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with the statutory rule and that it be affirmed by the Assembly.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

The regulations set out the acceptable practices that may be performed on animals by non-veterinarians. The Welfare of Animals Act of last year was a welcome piece of legislation. Although I was not a Member of the House at the time, I know that it was debated at great length.

However, it is important that legislation, no matter how well intended or well drafted, does not have a counterproductive effect on the animals or industry that it is supposed to protect. Therefore, I welcome the regulations, as they clearly lay out the so-called permitted procedures. As any farmer will tell you, clear lines of identification are now embedded throughout the industry. Therefore, it makes sense that actions such as ear tagging are exempt from the Welfare of Animals Act.

Other common-sense procedures, such as allowing farmers to continue to castrate young male animals, are also exempt from the Act. It was already common practice before the Act came into force for any procedures that were carried out on a sensitive area of bone and skin to be done in a way that ensured minimal pain or suffering to the animals.

The regulations permit the continued routine of farmers seeing to their own animals and therefore allowing them to avoid the tremendous cost of having to bring in a vet every time an animal loses a tag. Living on a farm, I see how often that happens. It is not in the interests of farmers or any other animal owners to put their animals through unnecessary pain. However, it unfortunately happens on a small number of occasions. I am confident that the regulations will go some way to further preventing such instances.

Today’s provisions were broadly welcomed by the industry and my party. It is now up to the Department to ensure that they are properly enforced.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

On behalf of the Alliance Party, I offer my support for the draft Welfare of Animals (Permitted Procedures by Lay Persons) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank all Members who spoke for their contributions to the debate. I am pleased to note the support for the introduction of the Welfare of Animals Regulations 2012.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the draft Welfare of Animals (Permitted Procedures by Lay Persons) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 be approved.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I beg to move

That the draft Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 be approved.

Go raibh maith agat, LeasCheann Comhairle. I seek to introduce the statutory rule, which, subject to the Assembly’s approval, will replace the Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulations 2000. I will explain briefly to Members the background to the regulations.

Following the introduction of the Welfare of Animals Act 2011 on 29 March last year, it has been necessary to consolidate and remake the Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulations 2000. Those regulations were made under the Welfare of Animals Act 1972, which is in the process of being repealed.

The statutory rule lays down rules for protecting the welfare of farmed animals, and it imposes a duty of care on the person responsible for the animal. The rule also provides for general conditions under which farmed animals shall be kept and additional conditions for some farmed species, namely, laying hens, broilers, cattle, pigs, rabbits and calves confined for rearing and fattening.

As I said, the statutory rule will consolidate and remake the Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulations 2000, which were the result of several EU directives being transposed into local legislation. There are no significant changes to the 2000 regulations other than the removal of the provisions that are already in the Welfare of Animals Act 2011. Those provisions relate to the powers of an authorised officer, powers of entry, improvement notices and the issue of statutory welfare codes.

Members may also wish to note that mutilations or interventions have been removed from the welfare of farmed animals legislation, as they are now covered under the Welfare of Animals Regulations 2012, which the Assembly has just approved.

A 12-week public consultation with stakeholders on the draft Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulations 2012 was carried out between 4 July and 26 September. There were five responses to the consultation. The majority of respondents had no comments or views. Three stakeholders expressed views on the powers of seizure. Those powers were not part of the consultation exercise, as they are direct powers from the Welfare of Animals Act 2011. My officials responded to the three organisations separately.

I am pleased to say that, when the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee considered the regulations on 24 January and 28 February, it indicated that it was content for the regulations to be brought before the Assembly. I am grateful to the Chair and members of the Committee for their support of the regulations.

I commend the motion to the House.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Again, as Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate on the motion, which seeks to affirm the draft Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012. The Minister has outlined the provisions of that legislation, so there is no need for me to repeat them.

The current Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000, as amended, were made under the powers of the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1972. Following the introduction of the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 on 29 March 2011, these regulations are in the process of being repealed.

What the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) is doing here is fulfilling its statutory obligation by repealing and remaking, while at the same time consolidating, the Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 as amended. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development considered this proposal on 24 January and indicated that it was content with its policy merits. The Committee further considered the statutory rule on 28 February and resolved that it be affirmed. I can confirm that the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content that the statutory rule be affirmed by the Assembly.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

Last year’s Welfare of Animals Act brought together legislation relating to the welfare of farmed and unfarmed animals and substantially enhanced the 1972 Act. It is important that any regulations that we pass today do not impose any additional burdens on keepers. In fairness to the Department, I do not believe that they will. Rather, today’s regulations are a natural progression in revoking and remaking provision that was made under the Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000. Therefore, there is little new here today. The regulations made 12 years ago already detail the general conditions under which farmed animals can be kept, and they contain schedules setting out additional conditions applying to various species of farmed animals.

Given that the schedule to today’s statutory rule includes conditions that apply to the keeping of laying hens in different systems, it would be remiss of me not to mention the 2012 welfare of laying hens directive. You may recall that I brought the issue to the House a number of months ago and highlighted certain member states’ woeful attitude. Even now, three months after its implementation date, some of Europe’s largest egg producers seem blissfully negligent of the conditions of the directive.

Importantly, the 2011 Act also expanded the enforcement roles of DARD and council inspectors. Under the 1972 Act, these powers extended only to the police. My party had significant concerns about the new proposals, particularly in relation to significant responsibilities being passed to local councils without enough resources to match. Another significant amendment was that, where the inspector finds a farm animal that is likely to suffer, the inspector can now act immediately. While these proposals should be welcomed, they also mean that much greater responsibility and power will be placed in the hands of DARD inspectors. Therefore, I strongly believe that inspectors should be trained to a veterinary standard while being fully up to speed on all animal welfare regulation.

I use this opportunity to say once again that seizure must be the last resort in all cases. Farm animals falling into poor condition is not always down to complete disregard on the owner’s part. Sometimes farmers, through no fault of their own, perhaps because of poor physical or mental health, can neglect the care of their livestock. The Department must recognise that entering a farm and removing animals has the potential to greatly exacerbate the situation of, for example, a farmer who is experiencing mental health difficulties. Today’s statutory rule is a welcome progression of last year’s Bill. However, my party had concerns then and still has some of those concerns now.

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

I welcome the statutory rule and the improvements in the health of farmed animals. It informs consumer choice, and the agrifood industry can market abroad how animals are farmed here. I support the regulations on behalf of our party but back Mrs Dobson’s call for proper, full and adequate training for inspectors on the farm.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Again, on behalf of the Alliance Party, I support the draft Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 and concur with the Committee Chair.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank all Members who contributed to the debate. I will pick up on a few points, particularly those about laying hens. The Member will be aware that the island of Ireland is now fully compliant, as is Britain. We explored the issue of a unilateral trade ban, and the Member will recall that, in December, I said that I was seeking legal advice. We still await that advice and will continue to pursue it to make sure that we are looking after our local egg producers.

There will always be a reasonable and practical approach taken to the seizure of animals. It is all about the welfare of animals. Basically, the regulations that we are discussing today tidy up the existing legislation. There will always be a pragmatic approach to seizures, but the welfare of the animal has to be key. There are also clear routes for farmers to appeal decisions, and that will be made clear to everybody who wants to go down those routes.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the draft Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 be approved.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I beg to move

That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to fund three full cycles of IVF treatment, including the subsequent transfer of any viable frozen embryos, as recommended by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE); and further calls on the Minister to undertake a review of fertility services based on the updated NICE guideline on the assessment and treatment of people with fertility problems, which is due to be published in July 2012.

It is probably an opportune time to take a cheap political shot, but I will not, because I know that the Minister is interested in the issue, and this item of business has started earlier than expected, so I assume that he is on his way. For the record, I hope that he takes the time to look at Hansard, and I am sure that his officials are looking at the issue, too.

I welcome the opportunity to bring the motion to the House on behalf of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Approximately one in seven couples will be affected by fertility problems. Therefore, it is a significant and fairly common problem for a lot of people. We probably all know at least one couple who have had difficulty conceiving a child and opted to use IVF. We all know the great joy that comes about when IVF is successful and couples finally feel that their family is complete.

I will start by providing a brief history of fertility services here. Many Members will be familiar with the issues, as we debated the matter in the previous mandate, but I am conscious that there are a lot of new Members here today. The regional fertility centre in Belfast was founded in 1987, but, initially, provided services only to private patients. It was not until 2001 that we finally began to provide fertility treatment to health service patients. That decision was made by the then Health Minister, Bairbre de Brún, and it was a significant step forward, as, before 2001, anyone who wanted to access fertility treatment had to pay for it.

At the same time as launching the service, Bairbre de Brún initiated a public debate about the future of a publicly funded fertility service, and a public consultation was launched in 2003. During the consultation period, the fertility service was available on a limited basis to couples without children who satisfied a number of criteria, including a maximum age of 37 for women.

Following the public consultation, new arrangements were announced in 2006. A number of changes were introduced, including changes to the eligibility criteria. Those welcome changes included raising the maximum age limit for women from 37 to 39, improved counselling services and permitting couples with children to access the service.

Following a year of operation under the 2006 criteria, the health boards reviewed the situation. The evaluation highlighted the increasing demand for treatment, as more people were now eligible. Unfortunately, the demand exceeded the available resources, and it was shown that waiting times had seriously increased.

An Assembly motion was brought in October 2007, which called on the Department to conduct a review of fertility services, including the access criteria, the waiting list problem and the number of IVF treatments that would be available to couples. The motion was passed by the House, and, subsequently, the Department carried out a review. In October 2008, the then Health Minister, Michael McGimpsey, announced the outcome of the review. One of the key changes was the creation of a regional waiting list, which was welcomed by all. Previously, each health board had its own list, which had created a bit of a postcode lottery. The Minister also put in an additional £800,000 to get the waiting list down, with the expectation that, in future, the waiting time would be reduced to a maximum of 12 months.

That is a brief history of how we have got to where we are today. While I think everyone will agree that we have made good progress over the past 10 years, the bottom line is that we are still not meeting the NICE guidance on the provision of fertility treatment. The NICE guidance, which has been in operation since 2004, clearly states that a woman should be offered up to three cycles of IVF. At this stage, I will take the opportunity to clarify what is meant by three cycles. According to the NICE guidelines, a cycle of treatment begins with stimulation of the ovaries and the collection of eggs and sperm, and the transfer of one or two resultant embryos back into the womb. If other embryos are successfully produced at the time, they are frozen. They are then implanted into the womb, if the initial embryo did not result in a pregnancy. One cycle of treatment includes the transfer of the initial embryo and a transfer of any frozen embryos, if required.

NICE recommends three full cycles of IVF. It does that for very good clinical reasons. Unfortunately, IVF is not always successful first time round. The success rates vary with the age of the woman. For women aged 23 to 35, there is a 20% success rate after one cycle of IVF treatment. That means that 80% will not get pregnant after one cycle. We can clearly see by the statistics why, in most cases, one cycle of treatment is not going to be enough. That is why NICE recommends three cycles.

We must also remember that NICE does not operate in a vacuum. It makes recommendations not only based on the effectiveness of a drug or treatment, but takes into account its price and the impact on the health service of funding it. NICE is aware of the cost of fertility treatment and has judged that three cycles is the best way of achieving a fair balance between the needs of couples and the limits that will have to be placed on funding. Therefore, in my view, we should be providing the three full cycles; providing one is not good enough. For many people, the first time round is not successful, and their only chance to try again is to go privately. Going privately will cost people in and around £4,000. If it does not work, and they try a third cycle, it is another £4,000. In total, couples could find themselves in debt of around £8,000. At such an emotional time, when couples are trying for a baby, that can create more stress.

It could be said that the Department seems to be choosing to ignore NICE guidelines when it suits. We cannot treat IVF as a service on which the Department can simply use its discretion. It has been approved by NICE and, therefore, should be provided.

The health service should not always be about disease prevention; it should be about positive outcomes in health. Having children has many positive benefits for the parents and the wider family circle, who are much better off as a result.

If we look at what is happening in other places, we will find that 27% of primary care trusts in England are providing three cycles of IVF and 26% are offering two cycles. In Scotland, three cycles are provided, and two cycles are provided in Wales. My point is that it can be done there, when there is the will to provide the three cycles and follow the NICE guidelines. Why are we not looking to do it?

There is another issue that also needs to be urgently addressed. The Department frequently refers to providing one cycle of IVF. However, at the moment, the health service is providing only one fresh cycle of treatment. Any frozen embryos are not transferred. What happens in practice here is that couples go for health service treatment and receive one fresh cycle of IVF. If that cycle does not result in a pregnancy, that is all the treatment that is available to them. However, around half of couples will have generated frozen embryos. They are then left with a very difficult decision. The only way that they can use those frozen embryos is to pay to have them transferred, which costs around £1,500. In my view, we are on tricky moral ground here. The health service is creating embryos for people as part of the publicly funded treatment, but, in the case of any frozen embryos being available, we are allowing those to be transferred only in the private sector.

In January, in response to an Assembly question, the Minister stated that he would like to move to providing a frozen embryo treatment once the waiting list is stabilised. That is to be welcomed. However, that was the same answer provided by the previous Minister a year ago. I am worried that there does not seem to have been much real progress on the issue, and will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say later in the debate.

In the short term, we want to see frozen embryo transfer (FET) introduced in the health service. The Infertility Network, which has been campaigning for years on this issue, has calculated that that would cost only £250,000 per annum. Given that the Department has a budget of £4·3 million, surely the money can be found somewhere.

The last point I would like to make is that NICE is currently in the process of updating its 2004 guidance on the assessment and treatment of people with fertility problems. The updated guidelines are expected to be published in the summer of 2012. The new guidelines are to be welcomed, given that there have been significant developments —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Bring your remarks to a close, please.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

— in infertility practice and techniques since the original guidelines were published. The last time that the Department reviewed fertility services was in 2007. We are five years on, and I think that it is a good time for the Minister to look again at the issue, once the guidelines have been published. I welcome his views on this matter.

In finishing, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to thank the Infertility Network for all the work that it has done in supporting the Committee in bringing forward this motion.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I welcome the opportunity to speak as a member of the Health Committee on what is an important issue for many families in Northern Ireland today. This is a very sensitive matter, and one that needs careful consideration.

There have been many advances in recent years in improving and developing fertility services. That is particularly welcome. However, as with many areas in our health service provision, more could still be done to further improve accessibility in this particular field.

Infertility is a very distressing and sensitive condition. Unfortunately, it continues to affect many people across the United Kingdom. It is said that about one in six people, male and female, suffer from fertility problems of some kind. That highlights the importance of the issue for people here. We need to continue to develop and support methods aimed at helping those who find themselves in this situation.

Given the very sensitive nature of the issue, it is vital that we avoid the postcode lottery that previously existed, and which still continues in England. To date, there has been investment and progress on improving access to fertility services. That is to be welcomed. The 2006 announcement that saw all qualifying couples entitled to one full publicly funded cycle of IVF treatment, while also increasing the maximum age limit for women accessing the service from 37 to 39, was a positive step forward in improving and widening fertility provision. The extension of the upper age limit helped alleviate the problem of women suffering the heartbreaking scenario of narrowly missing out, by a number of months, on publicly funded IVF treatment.

Counselling plays a crucial role in fertility treatment. It should continue to be prioritised to support couples through the traumatic fertility processes, given the very low success rate — approximately 20% — of IVF treatment based on embryo transfer.

Unfortunately, even with a successful embryo transfer into the womb, the four out of five chance of an unborn child dying can often be just too great a burden for many couples to bear. Given the unimaginable stress that would exist in those scenarios, it is vital that an adequate support infrastructure is put in place to assist those most in need.

We need also remember the very important issue of the sanctity of life and ensure that that is always to the fore when dealing with this very sensitive fertility issue. The practice of freezing and then destroying embryos is particularly questionable and has resulted in many embryonic children not having the chance of life. As reported in newspapers, the IVF lottery competition that launched in the middle of last year, which gave contestants a chance to ultimately win a baby for £20, is a shocking example of how such a sensitive issue can be commercially hijacked by those selling precious human life. Human life should never be treated as a commodity; rather, it should be preserved and cherished in the dignified way that it deserves.

I welcome the Minister’s commitment and aspiration to see Northern Ireland widening its fertility services and I urge him to consider extending the service, without narrowing the accessibility criteria as that would result in fewer couples receiving any publicly funded treatment.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

During Question Time in September 2011, my colleague the Member for Mid Ulster asked a question about DuoFertility, which is a system based on detecting high fertility cycles in the human body. It was developed by Cambridge Temperature Concepts and was outlined on the Cabinet Office website in May 2011. It has been scientifically shown to achieve the same pregnancy rate as a cycle of IVF in the same patient population at a cost of £500, compared with a typical NHS cost of £4,000 per cycle. At the time, although admitting that what Mrs Overend said was interesting, the Minister said that Northern Ireland normally operates under the protocol of NICE guidelines. He said that if the system that Mrs Overend referred to was as good as she had indicated, he trusted that NICE would recommend it to us. He also said that it would certainly alleviate our problems, which are largely financial. Has the Minister been able to investigate that matter since Question Time last September?

I believe that I am right in saying that the only restraint in providing the three cycles is financial. That being so, will the Minister indicate where the provision of the three cycles of IVF treatment is on his departmental wish list? Are there many items ahead of it in that queue for finances?

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

I am very happy to participate in the debate and to support the Health Committee’s call for three cycles of IVF treatment. Colleagues who have been here longer than I have will know that the issue has exercised the House for almost a decade. In my opinion, it goes to the heart of our equality legislation, as it affects couples who are seeking to become parents and are being discriminated against in this region relative to other parts of the United Kingdom.

It is worth noting that in 2004, NICE produced the clinical guidelines ‘Fertility: assessment and treatment for people with fertility problems’, which suggested a number of criteria for the provision of IVF treatment for infertile couples. The criteria suggested in the guidelines had been adopted across the UK to varying degrees, and I suppose that the point of the debate today is to find the degree to which this region is willing to accept a guideline that clearly recommends that three cycles of IVF treatment be made available to infertile couples.

There is an opportunity for the Minister to respond to this debate, not in financial terms but in social and human terms, and to signal that, irrespective of the potential financial aspect of three-cycle IVF treatment in this region, it will be delivered. It needs to be delivered because if we continue not to do so, we will fall further behind the standards of IVF treatment provided in other member states of the European Union and many other parts of the United Kingdom.

An all-party parliamentary group report on this very question was prepared in 2011. The group was chaired by Gareth Johnson MP and was able to collate a lot of statistics. The group noted that in 1999, some 595,000 babies were born in the UK, 8,337 of whom — 1·4% — were born as a result of assisted reproduction treatment (ART). In 2004, it was shown that the UK was falling behind European counterparts in the amount of fertility treatment provided and, consequently, the proportion of babies born as a result of ART.

The survey that was conducted for the all-party parliamentary group showed that in 2000, there were 580 cycles of fertility treatment per million people in the UK, compared with an average of 1,057 per million in other northern European countries. In Denmark, for example, the proportion of babies born following ART was 3·7% of the total number of national births, compared with a figure for the same period of around 1% in the UK. It is not that the system that we operate is the worst in Europe — far from it. However, the point was well made by colleagues in Westminster in 2011 that it is also far from the best in Europe. I suppose it is particularly concerning, given that the guidelines to make it possible for these figures to radically improve have been available since 2004.

In summing up my short contribution, I appeal to the Minister to continue to prioritise this area of work and I look forward to his having good news to give to the many thousands of couples who, for one reason or another, are not able to conceive in the ordinary way. I hope that he may be able to send them the greatest gift that anyone can be sent: the possibility of entering parenthood through assisted reproduction treatment.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I am delighted to make a contribution on this very important and sensitive issue, as has been said. It is a very significant matter, potentially affecting one in six couples, according to my notes, but as our Health Committee Chairperson said one in seven, I accept her knowledge.

Infertility can be a source of incredible stress and heartbreak for many people. With advances in medical technology and techniques, we have a duty to respond where we can make a practical difference to people’s lives. Since this Assembly came into being, back in 1998, considerable interest and concern has been shown by many Assembly Members. Addressing infertility is a problem with many dimensions, as has been said. Those include the eligibility age for women, length of waiting lists, variance in access to IVF across different regions and investment in support counselling for couples.

The central issue is the number of cycles of IVF treatment that should be available in Northern Ireland. The NICE guidelines set out what the term “full cycle” is properly understood to mean, and that is fresh and frozen embryo transfer. Full cycles offer a considerably increased chance of a successful pregnancy. NICE has been recommending that health trusts offer three full cycles since as far back as 2004. The evidence suggests that such treatment substantially increases the chance of success by as much 60%. The NICE guidelines are based on clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The guidelines are to be revised this year, and it is almost certain that there will not be any regression recommended.

In Northern Ireland, the current policy is to aspire to three full cycles, as recommended in the NICE guidelines. However, as I understand it, not even one full cycle is offered in Northern Ireland at present. Surely, we can do better. One fresh transfer is offered in Northern Ireland, but that does not constitute a full cycle of IVF, which comprises a fresh transfer and a frozen embryo transfer. People are offered the fresh embryo part only. That is a fudge, as it makes it sound as though people here are being offered one full cycle. Also, there is a knock-on ethical issue here, because people are effectively left to follow up the frozen embryo transfer themselves privately, with considerable associated costs.

Northern Ireland is not only badly out of step with the NICE guidelines but increasingly out of step with policy and practice in other parts of the UK. As I understand it, up to three full cycles are offered in Scotland and parts of England, while up to two full cycles are offered in Wales. Again, it is worth stressing that, in practice, not even one full cycle is offered in this region. It is important that Northern Ireland takes heed of NICE’s expert opinion and makes strenuous efforts to implement the guidelines at the earliest opportunity.

I expect — indeed, I would be surprised if anything other than this were to happen — that the Minister will stress his good intentions in the area but caution that he does not have the resources to make the necessary investment to publicly offer the recommended three full cycles. We await his response with interest. However, I urge the Minister to listen to the strength of feeling on the issue in the Assembly and in the wider community and to make it a priority. Indeed, I think that it is important for the Minister and the Department to factor in some of the economic costs of not offering three full cycles.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Bring your remarks to a close, please.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

For example, there are knock-on costs in respect of counselling and dealing with mental health issues. It is critical that the Minister seizes the opportunity —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Time is up.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

— to make a real difference to the lives of many people in our community. I support the motion.

Pam Brown (DUP, South Antrim)

I also support the motion. Children are a blessing and a gift, and we can sometimes take them for granted and as a given. However, as already mentioned, that is not necessarily the case for one in six couples or one in seven couples — take it as you will. The inability to conceive naturally is, therefore, a fairly common problem that is rarely discussed and rarely aired in public.

The inability of couples to have children naturally gives rise to a number of problems, including psychological problems, resulting in couples and individuals having to seek psychological support. That is recognised in the process of infertility treatment, as couples are given psychological support through counselling before, during and after treatment. Fertility problems are possibly increasing as couples tend to marry and have children later on in life rather than earlier. Today, many people put off having children for a variety of reasons, such as their careers or, increasingly, money and financial stability.

A woman’s natural fertility decreases after the age of 35 and, again, after 40. Those who delay having a family are more likely to face fertility problems and, subsequently, become highly frustrated at not being able to have their own children. There was no publicly funded service prior to 2001, and those who wished to access fertility services and specialised care had to pay for it. That was considered and recognised to be inequitable.

Arrangements were then put in place to develop a publicly funded service, initially on an interim basis. Criteria for access were developed at that time. In 2003, a full consultation entitled ‘From People to Parents’ was issued. In 2006, after a long period of consultation and engagement with numerous stakeholders, changes were made to the criteria. In 2007, another review of policy was carried out at the request of the Assembly, with changes implemented in 2009. The length of time that people waited on the list was a prominent issue at that time. Additional money was provided to try to reduce that and, therefore, speed the process from referral to treatment.

The focus of the debate is the provision of three full IVF cycles rather than one, which is the case under the health service in Northern Ireland. Any additional cycles can be undertaken privately, of course, as a private patient. As has been mentioned, it is stated that there is a 60% better chance of success if three cycles are completed. That can, therefore, provide a couple with hope, as well as increasing their chances of success in having a family.

Unfortunately, as is the case with many things, money and resources are central to the issue. The Minister is on record as stating that we cannot afford it. Officials from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety told us in Committee that their main focus is to ensure that couples wait no more than 12 months for treatment. It remains an aspiration, in line with guidelines that were issued by NICE in 2004, that we reach a stage when women can be offered up to three cycles. I believe that it is worth looking into that to see whether three cycles or at least one full cycle of IVF can be funded. I also want to ensure that the Department takes account of the findings of the review that is being undertaken by NICE into the provision of IVF and fertility treatment in general.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

I, too, support the motion as a Member of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety. It is distressing for any person to live with infertility. How a family choose to cope with that situation depends very much on their values and beliefs. For families who enter into in vitro fertilisation treatment, the decision often comes after much discussion and soul searching. The process that they will enter is complex. The combination of necessary hormones to produce the required number of eggs for harvesting, the stress that is involved in completing the treatment, and the length of time that people wait to access the service through the NHS mean that the process can put extraordinary stress on people’s emotional health.

The sad fact is that one in six or seven couples will experience infertility and will have to face a number of decisions as a result. This year will mark 34 years since the first IVF baby was conceived and born. Every year, throughout the UK, many babies continue to be born via IVF. Having children is a choice for people, and infertility cruelly removes that choice. We have the technology to help to take control of that once again. There are a number of reasons why a person may experience fertility issues that make conception difficult. Couples can access counselling before and during treatment to help them to manage the stresses and strains of that treatment. We must ensure that we give couples the best possible opportunity to conceive through the NHS.

As has been said, women are more likely now to delay having children until they are established in their careers. I am pleased that, from April 2007, the age limit for females was raised to 39 years. That has meant that women who experience fertility problems in their early thirties are able to access that important service. I am also incredibly proud that Northern Ireland has some of the least restrictive criteria for accessing NHS funding for IVF treatment. Women in Northern Ireland can be confident that personal circumstances will not restrict them from joining the waiting list for access to IVF treatment. I am also very proud that we have managed to reduce the waiting lists so that couples can now access IVF services in a more timely manner. In some respects, that will help to alleviate the stress of infertility on couples and their wider family circle.

I agree that the time is right to increase the number of IVF cycles that couples can be offered, in line with NICE principles. I believe that the Department should move to ensure that NICE’s 2004 recommendations are implemented. Advances in technology may mean that there will be new recommendations, and we should endeavour to put those in place as soon as possible to enable us to continue to provide the best healthcare, which the people of Northern Ireland deserve.

Funding for IVF is like any other type of funding: there will always be those who support the provision and those who would like to see the money spent in other areas of healthcare. The fact remains that infertility can seriously affect a couple’s emotional and mental health. The feeling that their family is not complete is a reality for a lot of couples. I support the funding of IVF to ensure that we, as a society, give couples the maximum chance of having a family. Some couples end up spending their life savings trying to complete their family, and some can put themselves into serious debt in order to achieve that dream. We, as a society, should ensure that we provide as much help and support to those couples as we can. NICE has achieved that by identifying that access to three cycles of IVF gives the optimum chance of conceiving.

We must also remember that not every person who conceives will go on to have a baby at the end of pregnancy. Sadly, miscarriages and stillbirths are still very much a reality and every couple’s nightmare. Imagine a couple who have had their one chance of IVF and have experienced a miscarriage or a stillbirth, only to realise that they cannot continue to try to conceive. Of course, another cycle of IVF does not guarantee that the outcome will be different, but it is well known that the statistics suggest that if a woman has conceived once, she is likely to conceive again. Therefore, I suggest that we owe that couple the chance to have another cycle.

Obviously, access to IVF cannot and should not be unlimited. There has to be a limit at some point. Some couples are fortunate to conceive at their first attempt and realise their dream of having a child. Therefore, it is not anticipated that every person who joins the waiting list will need three full cycles, while many others will decide not to go down the route of IVF.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Draw your remarks to a close, please.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

However, for those who are not fortunate enough to conceive at the first attempt and who wish to carry on, we should ensure that they have that opportunity regardless of economic standing.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Like other Members, I do not think that there is much in the motion that is terribly controversial. There was support from all parts of the Committee, and having listened to the debate, I know that there is support from around the House.

There are several issues that are worth mentioning and focusing on. The counselling aspect is important. Many of us will know friends, family members or constituents who have been through the process and will know of the heartache and disappointment for some and of the joy of starting a family for, hopefully, many others. That is something that many people cherish and will remember for the rest of their life. It is important to get that counselling support for families and couples as they go through treatment.

It is vital that, where possible, we follow the NICE guidelines. Too often, we look at NICE guidelines and then decide how we can follow them in the cheapest way to deliver the service that is required. If NICE has suggested that we should endeavour to follow its guidelines, we should not penalise people by giving them a lesser service than they can expect in other parts of the UK. We should strive to deliver the same standards.

We have heard from previous contributors that the statistics show that chances of conception improve if couples can undertake the recommended three cycles of IVF. That is something that we should strive to deliver. I am quite sure that the Minister will be keen to deliver on that and make sure that we match the NICE recommendations and the support of the Committee and Members of this House with action on delivering it.

We must make sure that new advances in our fertility centre are constantly looked at, as was mentioned by my colleague Mr Gardiner, and that any new advances or practices are quickly adopted here and used to deliver the best outcomes for couples that we can possibly deliver and the best outcomes for money. It is all about getting a good result for couples — the birth of a healthy baby — and about supporting them on the journey through the treatment. Huge disappointments and setbacks can befall couples who go through the treatment, and it can be a very challenging time. However, the hope is that, with a family at the end of it, the process is worthwhile. We all support that, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s contribution.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I had not intended to speak in this debate but having listened to it, I find that there are issues that need to be ventilated. The previous contributor told us that there is nothing controversial about this issue, but there are ethical issues that touch on it. All of us, of course, who have had the privilege of being parents know the great joy of that and can understand the great disappointment of couples who desperately want to be parents and have not succeeded. Therefore, I am sure that all of us can empathise with finding solutions for their difficulties, and there is nothing wrong in that.

However, there are three tangential issues that touch on the matter and give me some questioning concern. The first pertains to the fact that, ultimately, as part of the process, there is destruction of unused embryos. A human embryo is, biologically, a living human being at the earliest stage of its development. Of course, it is dependent on the mother to nurture it and give it life, but, genetically, it is a distinct organism, different from both the egg and the sperm from which it grew. It does, in effect, need nothing more than the nourishment of the mother to grow into a recognisable human being. That is a point on which those who might take a religious perspective and those who might take a purely scientific perspective can probably agree. We have an arrangement where, ultimately, some embryos are destroyed. There is an ethical issue.

The second issue that I have concerns about is the development of processes, particularly in the United States, for sex selection in IVF treatment. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how far, if at all, that is permitted in Northern Ireland’s arrangements.

The third issue that concerns me — it is not referred to in the NICE guidelines from what I can see — is the question of the use or abuse of IVF treatment by lesbian couples. There was a case in Scotland just a couple of years ago in which a lesbian couple challenged the health service’s refusal to afford them IVF treatment. They got the backing of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and public money to do it, and they were preparing to take themselves into court on the issue when the health service backed down.

So I would like to hear from the Health Minister what the position is in Northern Ireland on that. Is IVF treatment available to lesbian couples, who can, as it were, be treated equally under legislation with other, regular couples desperate to have a child?

Therefore, when someone says that there is nothing controversial and nothing touching upon ethical issues about this, that is a naive misconception. There are ethical issues that need to be addressed. Of course we all want to help as many childless couples as we can but we cannot stampede through the ethics of the matter with no regard to what is right. With those few thoughts, I conclude my remarks.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the opportunity to hear the views of MLAs on this motion and, indeed, I welcome the opportunity to respond to it. I thank the proposer of the motion for raising this important issue, which has been the subject of several letters to the Health Committee over recent months. I recognise that infertility can be a shattering problem for those affected and can impact on all areas of their lives. There is nothing so disappointing as when a couple get together and try for children for it not to happen, and I can fully understand the heartbreak that is involved for couples in those situations.

Fertility services may not always be as high a priority as other specialist services that, essentially, treat disease, but the impact of fertility services is hugely significant in that they provide couples with the opportunity to have a family, which, previously, would not have been possible for them. This year marks the 25th anniversary of the first baby born in Northern Ireland as a result of IVF. Publicly funded fertility services with interim access criteria have been available since 2001. As a result of public consultation, initial criteria that were agreed in 2006, including the upper age limit being raised and allowing women with dependant children to access the service, enabled more women to access the service. A further public consultation took place in 2009 and resulted in widening the access criteria further. For example, the need to prove a stable relationship was removed, which one may question.

Our current access criteria are wider than those in many parts of the UK and allow more women to access the service. It should be noted that some areas of the UK do not offer fertility services at all or place access restrictions, such as having children from a previous relationship or either parent having a living child. The current NICE guidance was published in 2004, which was before my Department entered into agreement with the organisation. Therefore, the 2004 guidance has not been endorsed as applicable for health and social care. Despite that, we aspire to meet the recommendation of providing up to three cycles of treatment. However, current available funding makes that unachievable. The NICE guidance is being reviewed and is expected to be published in July 2012. The revised guidance will be considered for its applicability when published.

In Northern Ireland, we offer one fresh cycle of treatment to those who are clinically suitable for treatment. Although, as I have already indicated, that is less than the recommendation of up to three cycles, our access criteria offer more women the chance to avail themselves of treatment. Increasing the number of cycles offered would require additional recurrent funding, and in the absence of additional funding, offering up to three cycles would result in other criteria having to be tightened and could severely limit the number of women who could access the service. Following the 2009 review, the intention was that once the waiting list was stabilised at 12 months, a priority was to offer frozen embryo transfer. That was to be the first step in attempting to meet the NICE guidance recommendation.

The Health and Social Care Board has agreed with the Regional Fertility Centre that one treatment of FET should be offered to women who are clinically suitable. That will be offered to new referrals from 1 April 2012. That is a great step forward and should be applauded as it will offer women a further chance of having a family. There is just over £3 million recurrent funding for fertility services, and the investment has enabled the waiting list for treatment to be reduced to 12 months. As it costs approximately £3,500 for a cycle of IVF and £1,700 for FET, to increase the number of cycles offered from one to three would require a considerable investment in the service.

Our current waiting list targets are for a referral in nine weeks, a review in three months and treatment in 12 months. Those targets and the investment in services have shortened overall time from referral to treatment from around 24 months to 17 months. Again, that is good news. At February 2012, there were 575 on the active waiting list for treatment: 235 for IVF and 340 for intracytoplasmatic sperm injection. In addition, there were 65 patients awaiting an initial appointment, all of whom had received a partial booking letter asking them to contact the service to book into an appointment slot.

I appreciate that those who use fertility services are keen to have access to the maximum number of cycles possible. However, I trust that the information that I have passed on has demonstrated that the service that we are providing is the best that is possible with the existing funding. I would like to be able to make three cycles of fertility treatment available to those who need the services, but, unfortunately, that is not possible with the current funding. Despite the financial constraints, we intend to offer FET to new referrals.

I will deal briefly with some issues that have been raised. All those in the Committee support counselling, and we recognise the importance of counselling for people who are unable to have children and, indeed, for people who are receiving treatment. In the past few years, additional recurrent funding of £51,000 has been made available for counselling of that nature.

I was asked about the NICE recommendations for the three full cycles. As I indicated, we will offer frozen embryo transfer as part of the package now, and that should be a significant asset. Across the UK, on average, 32·3% of such treatments are successful for those under 35. It falls quite dramatically by the time people are 39, and beyond that, it falls even more dramatically. Perhaps we need to look at and address that. If we were to up the number of cycles, should we look at excluding those areas where it is less successful? All that would have to be taken into consideration.

There was also a query about whether we have had the chance to consider the test that Mrs Overend raised at one point. That has not yet been considered by NICE, but we will get new NICE guidance in July 2012, and I trust that it will have had the opportunity to look at that issue and give guidance on it.

Mr Allister raised the issue of sex selection. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority gives guidance on the storage of embryos and the length of time that they are stored for. That is governed by the HFEA. I certainly would not approve of any sex selection. That has been used in countries such as China over the years, and it is a huge human rights violation. There has been somewhere in the region of 400 million cases of infanticide, and the population is now much more predominantly male than female. I believe that such tampering with nature is hugely retrograde and will damage that society in due course. Mr Allister also raised the issue of same-sex couples. IVF treatment is available to all couples who meet the criteria in Northern Ireland, as set out by previous guidelines.

I can give an assurance that when the revised guidance is issued by NICE in the summer, we will consider its application. We will take the views expressed this morning into full consideration at that time.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

My wife and I are privileged in having three children, and I concurred with Mr Allister when he referred to the happiness that that has brought us. However, I am also aware of friends, neighbours and members of my church who have found it difficult, if not impossible, to have children and the huge amount of pain that that has caused those couples. That was reflected in many of the comments made today by various Members. Infertility can be a heartbreaking condition, and not being able to have children can have a serious impact on couples’ health and well-being.

It is obvious from the contributions of the Health Committee and other Members that we in the House take the issue seriously. We are also aware, as the Minister has pointed out, that budgets are extremely tight at the moment. However, the point was raised by many, including Mr McCarthy, that by not making three full cycles of IVF available to couples, we are, in fact, breaking the guidelines set out by NICE in 2004. We recognise that progress has been made over the past 10 years but we believe that a lot more work is needed.

The Chair of the Committee succinctly set out the current situation. One in seven couples has problems conceiving. There has been some progress, but the NICE guidelines are that there should be three full cycles. Sadly, 80% of those who have only one cycle of treatment are not successful. That must be an extremely distressing period in their lives. The overall cost quoted was £250,000 per annum, which sounds like a lot of money, but, of course, that is set against a very large health service budget.

Gordon Dunne was the first of many MLAs to raise the very complex moral issues associated with IVF treatment. Those were expanded on by Mr Allister and referred to by the Minister. I have absolutely no doubt that, for some Members, certain aspects of IVF treatment throw up desperately difficult moral problems. Sam Gardiner mentioned the contribution by Mrs Overend in September 2011. The Minister responded to that, but it was an interesting point that she raised. I am sure that through Assembly questions for written answer, we will be able to dig a bit deeper on that very important point.

Conall McDevitt was his usual articulate self and made some very interesting contributions about the differences between Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe. Some of the statistics show that we are very out of line with our European friends.

Kieran McCarthy highlighted the ethical risks involved with dealing with frozen embryos and called on the Minister to make that a priority. I think that Mr McCarthy has included that line in every speech that he has ever made in the Assembly. The problem is that if the Minister were to make everything that Mr McCarthy wanted a priority, nothing would be secondary and everything would be at the top of the pile. That would be difficult, but I certainly understand the points that he made.

Pam Brown brought to the debate a very interesting new point about the number of couples marrying and having children much later. The demands of modern life mean that people feel that they are not in an economic position to have children early, or perhaps they wish to pursue career opportunities. Therefore, the point of first birth is getting later and later — my mother had her last child when she was 46, so I have very clear memories of the difficulties that that can cause. That is one of the reasons why fertility rates are dropping quite dramatically. Ms Brown’s point is one to be applauded.

Paula Bradley alerted us to the fact that it is over 30 years since the first IVF child was born. In Northern Ireland, I understand that it was 25 years ago. She mentioned the enormous emotional distress that infertility causes couples who are unable to conceive. We need to constantly remember in this debate that we are dealing with real humans who are hurting desperately. Some couples have been able to put it behind them and move on with their lives because it has not haunted them, but it has caused the most dreadful trauma for other couples. During any conversation, they are very quick to raise the fact of the pain that has been caused as a result of their childlessness.

Ms Bradley also stated that Northern Ireland has some of the least restrictive access criteria in the United Kingdom. That is to be welcomed. She made the very valid point that it cannot be limitless; there has to be a threshold, which is set by NICE at three cycles. In other words, even in the very easy-going approach to this issue in the rest of the United Kingdom, couples cannot come back for a fourth or fifth cycle of treatment. There has to be a point at which couples have to accept that, unfortunately, it just is not going to happen. The limit of three is relevant, but, of course, in Northern Ireland, we do not even have that at the moment.

John McCallister raised a novel point about the importance of counselling to the couples who are going through that traumatic period in their lives. He also said that we should not always look at what the cheapest option is but the one that is best for couples in that situation.

Jim Allister made an interesting contribution about the ethical problems that are associated with IVF treatment. He mentioned his concern about the destruction of unused embryos. I was quite alarmed to hear — perhaps it happened under direct rule; I am certain that it did not happen under the present Minister’s regime — that there is no test now about whether there is a sustainable relationship ongoing before IVF treatment is administered. I believe that children are best brought up by married couples. Therefore, given the fact that there are huge demands on the resources of the Department to provide IVF treatment, it should be prioritised for those who can give the best upbringing to the children, which, in my opinion, is married couples. They should take priority. I am very worried that the guidelines have been amended in the past to allow, basically, people who have no relationship with anyone to have IVF treatment. That worries me in the context of limited resources.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

To clarify: that was amended in 2009.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

That happened under the previous Administration and Mr McGimpsey. I do not think that the Assembly was made aware of that change. Had it been brought to the House, several Members would have expressed their concern about it. That has slipped through and it needs to be looked at again.

Mr Allister raised the issue of sex selection. I am glad that the Minister forthrightly said that he was totally opposed to any form of sex selection when it comes to IVF treatment. We have seen the whole issue of sex selection in abortions, which are clearly being practised in other parts of the United Kingdom. Many of us in the House find that utterly repugnant, so I am glad that he has made that absolutely clear. I am concerned, however, that IVF treatment may be administered to same-sex couples. Again, given limited resources and the fact that so many married couples are desperate to have the treatment, priority should be given to them.

This has been a timely debate and one in which very important points have been made. We accept, of course, as the Minister said, that we are down to the issue of resources and so many competing priorities. The point has been made that we are talking about £250,000. That would still equate to three consultants or eight or nine senior nurses, so you have to look at it in that context. Equally, however, as a person who lives in the United Kingdom, we need to avoid a —

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Deputy Chair for giving way. I accept that, in these grave times, we are looking at every penny. However, on the back of what was said in the debate about counselling and some people experiencing a lot of pressure in their lives, sometimes we need to spend a pound to save a lot of money. If people got a third cycle of IVF using the amount of money that we spend on counselling, it might save money in the long run.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I agree with the Chair and Member for West Belfast. The difficulty that the Department faces at the minute is firefighting; we need to save money now. The savings that she indicated are long term. It may be that we do not have the luxury to take those into account. We are not talking about a huge amount, but at the end of the day, there are so many competing priorities and so many people tugging the Minister’s heart strings to encourage him to spend extra money. It is a Wisdom of Solomon situation.

I go back to the point that I made earlier: we are part of the United Kingdom — some of us like that and some do not — and, therefore, it is important that when it comes to this vital treatment, someone in Basingstoke is treated the same as someone in Belfast. Our long-term aim should be to move to the situation in which couples in Northern Ireland can, by right, have three cycles of IVF. It was quite shocking to hear in the Chairman’s comments —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Bring your remarks to a close, please.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

— the costs involved and to learn that couples are running up huge bank debts to achieve what many of us are blessed with, which is a happy family and children.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to fund three full cycles of IVF treatment, including the subsequent transfer of any viable frozen embryos, as recommended by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE); and further calls on the Minister to undertake a review of fertility services based on the updated NICE guideline on the assessment and treatment of people with fertility problems, which is due to be published in July 2012.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 6 July 2012 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Marine Bill (NIA Bill 5/11-15).

On Tuesday 6 March 2012, the Assembly referred the long-awaited Marine Bill to the Committee for the Environment for scrutiny. The Bill sets out a new framework for the seas around Northern Ireland that is based on marine planning, sustainable development, improved management for marine conservation and a streamlining of some aspects of marine licensing.

On 8 March, the Environment Committee agreed to call for written submissions from interested organisations and individuals. In addition to signposting notices in the press, 48 stakeholders were contacted directly, and a number have already indicated their intention to respond to the Committee’s request. The Environment Committee believes that it is also essential that all 26 councils are given the opportunity to comment on the Bill. There is clearly a need for compatibility between marine and terrestrial planning, particularly where there is an overlap of responsibilities at the coastline. It is intended that marine planning will remain with central government, so in anticipation of the devolution of planning powers to a local level, councils will need to have an opportunity to comment on the Bill.

The Committee is fully aware that in Northern Ireland, marine functions are spread over several Departments. Thus, we have contacted all relevant Departments’ scrutiny Committees, seeking evidence on any clauses that may be relevant to them. All of this will take time, so we have allowed until 27 April 2012 for responses. The Committee anticipates a high volume of submissions, from which it will select a number of respondents to provide oral evidence.

The Committee feels that it is essential that it is afforded the time to exercise its scrutiny powers to the full. I ask the House to support the motion to extend the Committee Stage of the Marine Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 6 July 2012 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Marine Bill (NIA Bill 5/11-15).

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately upon the lunchtime suspension. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The first item of business when we return will be Question Time. The sitting is, by leave, suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.24 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Questions 7, 9 and 12 have been withdrawn and require written answers.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

1. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for an update on the processing of single farm payments. (AQO 1563/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The single farm payment represents a significant part of the income of farm businesses, and my Department has a good track regard in processing payments. The 2011 targets I set last November were exceeded, with over 85% of claims paid in December and over 90·2% in January 2012, compared with the targets of 83% and 90%. I anticipate that between 93% and 94% of all 2011 single farm payments will be completed by 31 March. In total, more than £246 million has been paid out to date. That leaves fewer than 7% of claims left to process, with a maximum of £21 million potentially still to be paid for the 2011 scheme year. Those claims are outstanding for a number of reasons, including the need to apply inspection findings, probate or, in some instances, simply because the claimant has not provided bank account details. Not all the remaining cases may be due a payment because of ineligibility or the application of penalties under scheme rules.

This has been a challenging year in relation to the 5% of claims that required on-farm checks to verify the eligibility of land. Those checks identified a large number of changes in respect of field boundaries and ineligible land. In many cases the changes date back to 2005 and involve retrospective land area adjustments, which are complex and take longer to process.

Although I am pleased that my Department has met its targets and is also likely to meet EU requirements on payment processing, I am concerned at the level of payments still to be made. I recognise the difficult financial situation that some claimants now find themselves in, and I have asked my officials to develop a plan to speed up the processing of those cases. We have found a number of ways of improving the situation, including diverting staff to that work, introducing some software modifications and adjusting the detailed processing arrangements. The situation is being monitored, but early indications are that this has all helped to increase the number of payments being processed.

Let me add that, in light of the difficult financial circumstances that some claimants have identified, I have sought a meeting with representatives of the main banks. I intend to meet them over the next number of weeks. It is important that we impress on the banks that, in a lot of cases, just because payment has been delayed, that does not mean that the claimant will not receive it. They may, in fact, receive it further down the line. That is important work.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I remind the Minister that there is a time limit.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Those are the investments that I am currently implementing in the Department.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

In her opening remarks, the Minister referred to the payment being a significant part of farm income. Certainly, having listened to what she said, I can only take it that she takes the matter very seriously. I could fill her desk with letters from constituents, but that will not get us any further.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to come to his question.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Can the Minister give an assurance that the actions that she has detailed will ensure that the payments will be made by 31 March?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I assure the Member that I am doing everything that I can in the Department to speed things up. As I said, we have met the targets. However, if you are in the percentage of people waiting for payment, it is obviously very frustrating. Things like putting in additional staff and modifying the software will all improve the payments. I asked the Department to look at it with a twofold approach: to look at the things we can do immediately to improve the situation this year with regard to the 2011 claims, and to ensure that, next year, we are not sitting in the same position, with a small percentage of people remaining to be paid after the date.

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

I note from the Minister’s answer that some of the remedies have been tried before by the previous Minister. I want to know what this Minister has done differently to ensure that payments will be made. Can the Minister give us any indication of the number of appeals and when they will be heard?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is important to say that 93% of all payments have been made. That is £246 million that has been paid out to rural businesses and into farmers’ hands. That is a positive thing. However, I understand the frustrations that some people have had. As I said, this year has been particularly difficult, with the land parcel identification system (LPIS) project and remapping. A lot of staff have been put into that area of work. We have now asked 12 members of staff to go back to this work to make sure that we get the remaining people paid as quickly as possible. The appeals process will come after that date, and I am happy to keep the Member up to date on that.

My priority is to get the money into people’s hands as quickly as possible. We are ahead of our target, but I understand that there is still a lot of frustration and that people are in genuine financial difficulty because they are waiting for their single farm payment.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Minister has, of course, accepted that this had been a difficult area for some time. Will farmers who have an inspection in this and future years face the same delays in getting their payments?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We have plans to speed up the processing of next year’s inspection cases. My work was twofold: trying to get this year’s claims out as quickly as possible and looking at how we can speed up the inspections process for 2012. In particular, I am working to start inspections earlier for 2012 claims so that they can be completed earlier. The Member will be aware that the Commission does not allow payments to be made until all inspections are completed. If we were in a position to get those completed earlier, payments could be processed earlier. This year’s teething problems with new software should be resolved by next year. Those are all positive things that point to the fact that, hopefully, we will not be in the same position this time next year.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Thank you very much, Minister. You mentioned actions such as additional resources and software changes to accelerate payments. Your Department also advised that a refinement of processes was applied to accelerate payments. What refinement of processes did your Department carry out?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We are looking at the particular delays in each part of the process, from when an application is received right through to inspection and what comes back into the Department. I am happy to give the Member a lot more detail in writing of all the ins and outs.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

2. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what engagement her Department is having with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the European Commission to help to ensure that Northern Ireland’s views are included in negotiations regarding reform of the common agricultural policy post 2013 and, in particular, the mandatory greening measures of pillar 1. (AQO 1564/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have had a number of meetings on CAP reform with the DEFRA Ministers Caroline Spelman MP and Jim Paice MP. Those included meetings around the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council in October and November 2011 and joint meetings with the other devolved Ministers on 25 October and 14 November 2011. Further meetings with Ministers Spelman and Paice will follow in the coming months, and I will attend upcoming EU Council meetings.

I met the EU Agriculture Commissioner, Dacian Cioloş on 14 November and again during a visit to Dublin on 19 January this year. I plan further meetings with Commission officials, including a meeting in April with Georg Häusler. It is my intention then to submit a position paper on CAP reform post 2013 to ensure that our views are well known within the Commission and that we provide firm views on the proposals.

The Member will be aware that I recently undertook a consultation on CAP reform. I thank all who responded to the consultation and availed themselves of the recent round of stakeholder meetings, when I went out and about and listened to views. Those roadshows were hugely beneficial in gathering information and hearing the views of farmers and the rural community on CAP reform. Not surprisingly, greening was a massive issue and was consistently raised at each of those meetings.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. The Minister will be aware from the consultation responses of concerns about pillar 1 being weighted too heavily towards environmental issues rather than food production. Does the Minister agree with the views of many that aspects of pillar 1 have already been achieved in Northern Ireland through measures in pillar 2?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I agree with the Member that we have farmers who are very mindful of the environment. That is their livelihood, and they protect their future. The point that we are making to the Commission is that one size does not fit all. We have very good greening here, and our farmers actively do that.

It would be easy for me to say that I supported the principle that CAP needs to deliver for the environment but could not support the principle set out in the CAP proposals because the greening requirements would have a severe impact on our farmers’ competitiveness. However, our farmers are already doing a lot of that. Our fantastic agrienvironment schemes are commended across the board by environmental agencies. I think that we are doing a good job with greening, and that is the position that we will put to Europe.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Has the Minister had or will she have any discussions or engagement with Simon Coveney?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have a very good working relationship with Minister Coveney TD, and CAP reform has been discussed at all the recent North/South Ministerial Council meetings, held in July and October and, more recently, in February. I will continue to have further discussions as the CAP reform negotiations progress.

I am pleased to say that there is a lot of common agreement on the positions that we are forming on CAP reform. Our respective officials work together and remain in close contact, as they have done over a number of years. I have often talked about the “Team Ireland” approach when it comes to CAP reform, and I am still very much wedded to that.

All the proposals on CAP reform will go through the Commission and the Parliament, so it is important that we have our 15 Irish MEPs on board to fight our corner out in Europe and that their approach is consistent with the one that we have been taking.

Margaret Ritchie (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I thank the Minister for her responses. Given that she is due to meet the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the appropriate Minister for agriculture in Britain in the next few months, will she detail the subjects that she is meeting them to discuss? Will she also provide assurances that she will work to protect the needs of farmers in Northern Ireland to ensure that the principle of conacre is honoured in the CAP reform and that the principle of an active farmer is honoured, so that all payments go to an active farmer rather than a landlord?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Whenever I meet the DEFRA Ministers, it is to discuss CAP reform, so the discussions will be about that general issue. We differ in our opinions on the overall budget for CAP reform, because the British Conservative Government would obviously do away with the CAP in the morning. We differ on that, but we do not differ on a lot of the individual issues, particularly active farming, greening and food security. So, we will continue to use all alliances that we have to make sure that we have a strong case in Europe.

I am totally sympathetic to the view that it should be active farmers who receive the payment and not non-active farmers who are just landowners. That is the position that we need to get to. When it comes to CAP reform, there are three main principles: maintaining the budget, simplification and flexibility. They will be key. You talked about the conacre market, which is a situation unique to us. Again, we need to ask the Commission to be flexible so that we can suit the needs of our own industry.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

3. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what changes are likely to the single farm payment scheme if the common agricultural policy reform proposals are adopted. (AQO 1565/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The proposals for the reform of the single farm payment published by the EU Commission on 12 October would result in a number of changes to the current system. The single payment would be replaced by a number of payments, including a basic payment, a greening payment and a top-up payment for new entrants. In addition, there are options to introduce coupled payments and payments for areas of natural constraint. The proposed changes, if accepted, would inevitably increase the complexity of the direct payments process. Another feature of the current proposals is a move away from historically based payments towards a flat-rate payment system, which would lead to the redistribution of payments among claimants. However, those proposals are up for negotiation and could change before a final agreement is reached.

As I said, I am using every opportunity and avenue open to me to ensure that the final agreed reforms meet the needs of local stakeholders. I plan to submit a paper to the European Commission in the near future to ensure that my position on the needs of farmers and rural communities in the North of Ireland is clearly heard.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer. However, the answer indicated that there will be an additional workload if the reform goes through. What would be the costs to the Department of administering that? What would be the staffing implications of the changes that would come through the CAP reform, if it were implemented?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I do not have any such costings at this stage. We are getting the framework correct, which means working on flexibility, simplification and maintaining our budget. However, your point is very valid, because the Commission is proposing to move from one single farm payment to possibly as many as six for all the different elements, whether it is for greening or new entrants. That would be a nightmare for the Department to administer and a nightmare for the farmers. In all the roadshows that I have done over the past month or so, people clearly said that they do not want to see that kind of system. We are still at the negotiation stage, and the negotiations will really intensify over the rest of this year.

Ross Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

Is the Minister concerned that, due to its overcomplexity, the payment system will have the potential to increase the risk of future infraction fines?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

My Department engages with Europe and administers European funding probably more than any other Department. One thing that I have found very frustrating is that the Commission sets policies and then, five or six years later, may decide to audit how those are implemented and you find yourself faced with fines. The proposals on the table would be so hard to administer, even in terms of defining an active farmer and measuring income. It would also be very hard to administer a move from one payment to as many as six payments, and I talked about that earlier. The Commission would be watching over every stage. As I said, we are at the negotiation stage, and we have to try to make the process as simple as possible.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister and her team for engaging with the farming community in different parts of the Six Counties in the last few weeks. Indeed, the meetings ended up in Loughgiel. I am sure that the Minister will join me in congratulating Loughgiel Shamrocks on becoming All-Ireland club champions.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to come to his question.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

What is the Minister’s overall reaction to the CAP reform package?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I had that public meeting in Loughgiel last week, and I absolutely congratulate Loughgiel Shamrocks on their win.

Overall, what I have said to date on CAP reform is that it is a work in progress. It is very much at the negotiation stage. What is on the table could not be described as anywhere near acceptable. The biggest disappointment is in respect of simplification. As I said, what is proposed is nowhere near simple. Concerns around the greening proposals stem from the fact that they will shrink our arable sector and make us move closer to a grass monoculture, which would be environmentally undesirable. As I said, it is a work in progress. It is a big negotiation that will intensify in the year ahead.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I call Mike Nesbitt. [Interruption.] Order.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Do they call me leader?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Will they call you leader?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Not yet.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

4. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development whether any decisions have been taken on the protection of the horse mussel reefs in Strangford lough following the meeting between her officials and the European Commission on 24 January 2012. (AQO 1566/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

This is an important matter that remains a priority for my Department and DOE. Following the publication of the Queen’s University report in the summer of 2011, the Departments developed revised proposals for the future restoration of modiolus which we discussed with the Commission on 24 January. The Commission has confirmed that our proposals are insufficient, and we will consider carefully what additional measures are feasible.

We have just received formal confirmation of the Commission position. We will give careful consideration before responding in the next number of weeks to ensure that the Department’s actions meet the Commission’s expectations. I intend to meet fishermen to discuss options in the near future. We remain committed to the process and will work hard to implement timely actions that will meet the expectations expressed by the Commission and the Assembly.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister. Would the Minister care to confirm whether we are looking at a multimillion infraction fine and update us on that side of the fence? Does she accept that it is a failure on the part of her Department and one other that we find ourselves in this unpleasant position?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The issue has been going on for some time, as I am sure the Member is aware. Actions have been taken down through the years, such as increasing the exclusion zones and putting a management plan in place. The Queen’s University report was key to taking an evidence-based approach to moving forward.

It is important to point out that the Queen’s report, on which the Commission based a lot of its concerns, contains no evidence of a direct link between banning pot fishing and increasing the exclusion zones and restoration of the modiolus. In fact, there are areas in Strangford where no pot fishing takes place but there is still a deterioration of modiolus.

In moving forward, we have to be mindful of trying to maintain modiolus levels but also that people’s livelihoods are dependent on pot fishing in Strangford. It is about taking a balanced approach, and I am committed to taking that forward. I am also committed to taking whatever action is necessary to ensure that we avoid any further fines, which could be up to £9 million if we are not able to crack the issues that the Commission has addressed.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. How many vessels fish Strangford lough? What method of fishing is used? What is the value of the catch?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Strangford lough is restricted to vessels of 40 feet or less, and it can only be fished by pot fishing. Seven vessels fish there for longer than seven months a year, and they support over 20 people on a part-time basis. In 2009, the lough provided landings of langoustine, velvet crab, brown crab and lobster valued at £139,000. Therefore, there is a small industry there. Livelihoods depend on pot fishing on the lough. Therefore, any decision on the way forward has to be a balanced one.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I commend the Minister for her efforts towards the fishermen on the lough. Has the Department considered compensation for fishermen who may find themselves unemployed because of European instructions?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I confirm to the Member that I intend to meet the fishermen over the next number of weeks, and I am sure that that issue will come up. I will be happy to explore it with them. However, first, we need to deal with the Commission and get an acceptable way forward. Once we do that, we can be in a position to explore any of that. However, it is important that I consult the fishermen on the way forward.

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

I wish to avoid the pessimistic mood that Mr Nesbitt appears to be in these days. What meetings have taken place between the Ulster Wildlife Trust and Queen’s University, with a positive view to restoring the modiolus reef to favourable recognition in the European Union, rather than talking about the infraction measures that have been mentioned?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Ulster Wildlife Trust decided to go straight to Europe as opposed to talking to the Departments here, and that is disappointing. However, we are addressing the issues that were raised in the trust’s letter to the Commission through the Department of the Environment and my Department.

As I said, there is no evidence in the Queen’s University report to suggest that banning pot fishing would lead to a restoration of modiolus levels. That needs to be borne in mind when a decision is taken on the way forward. There are also areas in Strangford where no pot fishing happens, and the modiolus levels are still pretty low. Therefore, given the fact that people’s livelihoods depend on this, we need to take a balanced approach for the way forward.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

5. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, in order to avoid unnecessary redundancies, what action is being taken to provide funding to ensure that council staff who deliver rural funding through local action groups and joint committees can continue to do so until the next European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development becomes available. (AQO 1567/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Council staff who carry out administrative duties to assist in the delivery of axis 3 of the rural development programme are employed under a service-level agreement with joint council committees, with which my Department has a contract to deliver the programme. The Department is not the direct employer of those staff.

Each joint council committee is permitted to utilise, by way of an administration budget, an amount equivalent to 20% of the funds disbursed on project grants. That means that, for every £5 spent on a project, £1 may be used towards administration. It is up to each joint council committee to manage those funds within the allocation and conditions linked to project spend.

The shape of the next programme and how it will be delivered is still under consideration. Indeed, the proposals from the European Commission are not yet agreed. As you will know, in December I announced a refocus for axis 3, which, in part, was driven by the low project spend and high administrative spend. I have asked for all areas to urgently examine their progress and to refocus by reallocating to higher investing measures and to target strategic projects. We must see the results of that coming forward to ensure that we do not return funds to Europe.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for that response. The Minister acknowledges that there will be a future scheme to deliver rural development funding. Obviously, it is important that there is a seamless transition from this scheme to the new one. As the Minister will know, staff are on fixed-term contracts, so all steps should be taken to avoid unnecessary redundancies in anticipation of a future scheme.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The point is well made. In respect of CAP reform, the rural development programme has an end date, as the Member has pointed out. Therefore, it is important that there is some contingency in place if the timescale in Europe slips.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Is it still the Minister’s intention to invest further funds in rural broadband?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have made broadband one of my priorities in the Department. That is why I recently announced that DARD will invest £5 million from the rural development programme in broadband. However, it is fundamental for me that future investments eliminate more of the “not spots” and areas where people have lines of under two megabits. It is key that that money is targeted at those areas and is not just put into a wider pot.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

I wrote to the Minister on this issue last month, raising the concerns of the rural support networks, including TADA in my constituency, about the lasting damage that funding uncertainty could wield against the valuable work that those groups conduct in rural communities. It is regrettable, Minister, that you are not able to agree to a meeting. However, can you tell the House whether you have had any meetings with representatives of rural support networks to hear their concerns on the issue?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I meet many groups many a time. I think that there are nine rural support networks, which do valuable work, and I appreciate the work that they continue to do. It is not always possible to meet everybody all of the time. If the Member wants to talk to me afterwards about any particular concerns about a network, I will be happy to discuss them.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Is there any prospect, Minister, of the LAGs and joint committees doing their work more efficiently, given that figures recently supplied by you indicate that, whereas £14 million has been paid out of this funding, £7 million has gone on administration? Will you join me in urging the rejection of the preposterous proposal before the Armagh committee to refurbish the IRA monument in Crossmaglen?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

With regard to efficiency, I think that the level of administrative spend when any new programme is brought into being is higher at the start. You are right: you picked out that £7·5 million was the council’s administrative spend. That sum is out of a total of £21·5 million, so £14 million was paid out in projects. The level of administrative spend is not unusual over the first years of any programme, although I think it is fair to say that the project spend has been lower. That has a lot to do with the current economic climate. That is why I announced in December that I wanted all clusters to urgently refocus on strategic projects and the reallocation of funds across the better spending measures.

I have told the Member before that the application regarding Crossmaglen is with the joint council committee, and it will make the decision on the way forward.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I want to follow on from the Minister’s answers. Will she outline to the House the potential implications and costs for staffing going forward?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am not particularly sure what element of the costs the Member means. Some £7·5 million has been the administrative cost to date, and I have explained why I think that that is the case. The economic climate has meant that, if you compare that with the project spend, the figure looks distorted. However, I am happy to pick up the issue with the Member afterwards.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

6. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for her assessment of the priority that should be given to addressing the issue of mental health in rural areas. (AQO 1568/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Providing a comprehensive service to address mental health issues in rural areas is a high priority of mine. As you are aware, as Chair of that Committee, the Health Department is the lead Department with regard to mental health provision. However, it can be a particular issue in rural areas due to their remote and isolated nature, and the stigma attached to mental health means that it is not always openly discussed. I have met a number of mental health charities to discuss ways in which the Department can assist them in the work that they are undertaking in rural areas and to help to raise the profile and remove the stigma around mental health issues and suicide awareness.

I recently announced a £16 million package of measures aimed at tackling rural poverty and social isolation. Under that framework, my Department will be working in conjunction with the Public Health Agency and health trusts to provide a rural communities health checks programme. Through that programme, it is expected that 2,500 rural dwellers will avail themselves of a comprehensive screening service that may and could include signposting to various mental health services.

I have met many groups over the past 10 months, such as the Níamh Louise Foundation and Aware Defeat Depression. There are fantastic groups out there working in urban and rural settings and carrying out fantastic work. I want to continue to support them to do what they do, because a lot of the things that they have identified and raised with me are specific to rural areas.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. It is not that often that a city slicker like me gets to ask the Agriculture and Rural Development Minister a question. You are right: mental health does not know any borders or boundaries. I am delighted that it is a high priority. I am also delighted, Minister, that you have taken the opportunity to meet charities. Can you outline to us the issues that they have raised and the action you are taking to address those issues?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

One of the issues raised by the mental health charities was that there appeared to be a stigma around mental health in rural areas. It is as if it is a taboo subject, and people do not want to talk about it. Sometimes, a culture of self-sufficiency can lead to reluctance to seek outside help, particularly with mental health issues. There are social factors in small rural communities, such as fear about confidentiality and about going to your GP for help and things being talked about. Those fears and tackling the issue of stigma is something that we need to address seriously.

I am working with two charities, the Niamh Louise Foundation and PIPS, that are organising a conference to promote mental health and well-being in rural areas. I am delighted to be part of that project. I look forward to bringing that conference into a rural area and the continuing work that will fall out from that.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Questions 3, 7, 9 and 10 have been withdrawn and require written answers.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

1. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning what measures he will take to tackle youth unemployment to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the Work Programme in Britain. (AQO 1576/11-15)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am pleased to inform Members that since I last reported on youth unemployment at Question Time, the proposals put forward by the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) to address youth unemployment have been accepted by the Executive. The core elements of the new strategy will include early intensive diagnosis of employability skills; opportunities for taster work experience for clients while on benefits; individual skills and careers-focused assessments; sector-based work experience and training in areas of skills shortage; a new employer subsidy for up to one year; a new emphasis on continuing skills development and growth; and a range of new measures to help young people not in education, employment or training. These measures will be additional to existing provision by being targeted at skills development for economic growth. It is important to acknowledge that the measures are informed by local needs and circumstances as well as best practice from other jurisdictions, including Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland.

The measures will mean that due to earlier intervention than is currently offered, skills development can begin after 13 weeks of a benefit claim rather than at 26 weeks, the current mandatory trigger for entry to Steps to Work for 18- to 24-year-olds. The new measures will make provision for job-ready young people who, but for the current economic situation, would be in work, and for those who are some distance from the labour market and require considerable support to address their barriers. I am also planning to include what I will refer to as a skills premium for employers; a training grant of up to £750 to assist employers with formal training costs or £300 for shorter training on accredited courses.

I was pleased that the economic strategy endorsed by the Assembly last week recognised the impact that the recession has had on young people and included a commitment to actions and targets to directly address this issue. I am now engaging with the Finance Minister over the finalisation of this policy, including the critical issue of resourcing the new initiatives. Once the resourcing has been agreed and the policy finalised, I will make a fuller statement to the Assembly.

I believe that the policy will make a significant contribution to linking social and economic policy by building the skills base of our unemployed young people to prepare them for the jobs that will rebuild and rebalance the economy. At the same time, the measures will seek to ensure that no young person is left behind. We must build opportunity for all our young people, regardless of their abilities and circumstances.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I remind the Minister of the time limit. If the Minister needs more time, he can certainly ask for it.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Are the Minister and the Department learning any lessons from the JobBridge programme in the rest of Ireland? Are there similarities or flaws that they can look out for in our particular situation?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for his question. I assure him that what we are doing is primarily about addressing the local circumstances in Northern Ireland. However, of course our experience of youth employment is mirrored across these islands and, indeed, much further afield. We are very happy to learn lessons from other jurisdictions, whether those are the good lessons or the lessons of what to avoid. We are very happy to look at what is happening in the Republic of Ireland.

What we are about to undertake in Northern Ireland, and I must stress to the House that this is subject to financing decisions being made, will be very innovative. It is something that is desperately needed to address the situation for our young people.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Often it is lack of experience that holds back many of our young people who are seeking full-time employment. The Minister listed a number of programmes that he is running. However, is he receiving sufficient employment opportunities in which young people can receive that experience? What is he doing to try to increase the opportunities that are available to those young people?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for his interest in this. I stress that what I am announcing today are intended to be new initiatives on top of what is currently offered to young people. However, it is only a policy in development. We are still awaiting decisions on the financing of the policy and are working actively with the Finance Minister on that. We have very good engagement with employers on this and, obviously, support from employers to give placements is absolutely critical to its success. Therefore, we are focusing very heavily on work experience. I have had meetings with all the representative employer bodies and other individual employers, all of whom were very enthusiastic about this and see an opportunity not just for them but for the wider economy in Northern Ireland.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the Minister’s announcement today, and I look forward to tomorrow’s meeting of the Employment and Learning Committee when he will go into more detail. Will he outline to the House any discussions that he has had with the Minister of Education, following on from Roy Beggs’s question regarding post-16 work placements with regard to clearer objectives and outcomes?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank Mr Ramsey for his interest in this and look forward to fuller engagement with the Employment and Learning Committee tomorrow. Certainly, the Minister of Education had an input into the paper and expressed a number of views. I also plan to meet the Education Minister as part of a routine bilateral in the next couple of weeks. No doubt, we will discuss how we can take the scheme forward and any particular interests that his Department may have in it.

Ross Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

2. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning what discussions he has had with the Minister of Justice about offering new skills training to prison officers who avail themselves of the voluntary staff exit scheme. (AQO 1577/11-15)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I have not had any specific discussions with the Minister of Justice about skills training for prison officers who avail themselves of the voluntary staff exit scheme. Through the careers service, my Department offers free, impartial careers information, advice and guidance to clients facing career decisions. Prison officers who wish to avail themselves of the service may do so through the NI Direct web-based service, where they will find useful careers information and details of how to contact a careers adviser in their local area.

Ross Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that it is important that prison officers who have given many years of service in difficult conditions are afforded the opportunity to retrain and that it is within his remit to ensure that those opportunities are provided?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I recognise that this is a particular cohort of people coming through the system with a particular set of needs. We are not talking about a redundancy situation. This is, essentially, an early retirement situation. Those people will have the ability to make a further contribution to the economy. The careers service of my Department is available to everyone in Northern Ireland, including adults. It is an all-ages service. I strongly recommend that anyone in that circumstance makes contact with the careers service through their local jobs and benefits office and makes an appointment to discuss their future opportunities. We are extremely happy to help in that regard.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Given the vast amount of money that has been set aside for severance, does the Minister agree that when an enhanced package like that is taken up, people should not be allowed to go back into the service and that a clause should be put in to state that?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for her question. It is important that we distinguish responsibility. My colleague the Minister of Justice is probably much better placed to respond to that question. My Department is not providing a particular dedicated response to that cohort of workers. However, I stress that there is an all-ages careers service available to everyone in Northern Ireland, and it is available to people who are going through this scheme, as it is available to anyone else in Northern Ireland who wants careers advice. In today’s society, people do not stay in the same job for their lifespan, and they want to change careers more frequently. Therefore, we are trying to place more emphasis on a careers service for adults.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Although I agree with the initial question — it is important that work is carried out to ensure that prison officers can go into other employment — does the Minister accept that with regard to the wider loss of jobs in Northern Ireland, whether from a factory, industry or whatever, it is important for people to be more aware of the service available so that they can move into other types of jobs, and will he ensure that that information is more readily available?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for his question. He made an incredibly important point, and it follows the previous answer I gave. People will be leaving or changing jobs or finding themselves out of work through no fault of their own, and it is important that we provide a full range, all-age service of careers advice to signpost people to the opportunities for retraining that are out there. The economy is our number one priority and our people are our number one asset. We cannot afford any inefficiency in the system where we do not make full use of people’s skills, ability and potential to contribute to our economy.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

4. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning what action his Department is taking to assist people with disabilities in finding employment. (AQO 1579/11-15)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

My Department has a range of pre-employment and employment programmes and services to prepare and support people with disabilities to find and retain employment. Specialist provision offered by the disability employment service includes an occupational psychology service, which carries out employment assessments for individual clients, including retention assessments for existing employees; the Workable programme, which provides long-term, in-work support, such as a specialist job coach, and may include disability training and education for employers; the Access to Work programme, which provides a variety of practical supports, such as assistance with travel to work and funding for specialist equipment; the condition management programme, which is delivered by health professionals to help people with disabilities to manage and overcome their work-related health problems; the return to work credit, which is a weekly grant of £40 paid to eligible benefit recipients earning less than £15,000 per annum; the job introduction scheme, which is a short job trial for someone with a disability trying to enter the labour market; and support for approximately 70 employees with disabilities at the Ulster Supported Employment Limited factory.

The Department is also about to tender formally for a new work connect programme, which will replace New Deal for disabled people. This provision, which will be available to clients on health-related benefits, will include flexible pre-employment support options to help people with disabilities to progress towards and move into employment.

The Department’s provision is delivered on a pan-disability basis by staff, healthcare professionals and specialist employment providers who have the range of expertise required to meet the needs of people with disabilities who want to progress towards employment or to find and retain a job that is right for them. All provision can be accessed through specialist employment advisers based in jobs and benefits offices and jobcentres across Northern Ireland.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he outline what extended eligibility is available for guaranteed training places for unemployed 16- and 17-year-olds with disabilities? Does he agree that it is crucial to get those people into employment?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank Mrs Dobson for her interest in this area. Following the recommendations of the disability working group in 2008, the Department’s Training for Success programme introduced a pre-entry training support service for potential entrants who have a disability. The programme offers extended eligibility for trainees up to the age of 22 who have a disability, and for those up to the age of 24 if they have a background in care. Participants are paid a non-means-tested education maintenance allowance. In addition, a supplement may be payable in respect of participants with a disability to assist providers in offering a significant additional input of resources, such as training time, equipment and support.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Minister outline the typical range and type of barriers that prevent people with disabilities finding meaningful jobs? What percentage of people with disabilities are categorised as unemployed?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I will have to write to the Member with the specific statistics that he requested. Barriers are often more perceived than actual, and I am very much of the opinion that every person in this society, with the proper support and encouragement, whether through their family or the state through the employment service or from companies has the potential to make a contribution to the economy and society. What is important is that we invest all that is necessary to unlock people’s potential. The barriers that people have are very few and are often the perceptions of others rather than genuine barriers to people making a contribution. Where there is an issue, the workplace can be adapted to allow people to make contributions to various companies and the public sector.

Dominic Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle, Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. Does the Minister believe that it is necessary to review work schemes for disabled people following the closure of Remploy in Britain?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for his question. I appreciate that what is happening in Great Britain is causing concern. However, I stress that employment matters are fully devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Indeed, we are the only region where employment matters are fully devolved. Rather than follow suit, we will do what we want to do in Northern Ireland. I have already made a commitment to Ulster Supported Employment Limited regarding the organisation’s future. A lot of people appreciate its contribution. It recently celebrated its fiftieth anniversary, and I certainly see it having a very positive future in society.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

5. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning for an update on any proposed changes to the education maintenance allowance scheme. (AQO 1580/11-15)

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

8. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning for an update on the education maintenance allowance scheme, including the steps he is taking to ensure that it is targeted at students in greatest need. (AQO 1583/11-15)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 5 and 8 together.

My Department and the Department of Education are committed to the retention of the education maintenance allowance (EMA) scheme. It is clear, however, that the funding needs to be better targeted. Findings from our joint review, which began in April 2010, with the final report presented in December 2010, highlighted that the scheme is not as effectively targeted as it could be. That was because some two thirds of students receiving education maintenance allowance indicated that they would have remained in education even if they had not received it. The previous Committee for Employment and Learning also agreed that the scheme could be better targeted. However, we cannot ignore that, in some cases, it does make a real difference.

I am determined to ensure that young people from lower income families continue to be assisted to stay in education and training. My Department and the Department of Education are considering a range of options for the scheme’s future. Once finalised, the options will be presented to the Executive, and a public consultation will follow. Any proposals to change the current provision will also be subject to the appropriate equality considerations.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he briefly indicate how the income assessment will work?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

It is probably fair to say that Mr Dunne’s question is a little premature. We are looking at a range of options for the future of EMA. That is subject to ongoing discussions between my Department and the Department of Education because it is a joint policy. A consultation will roll forward, and decisions will then have to be taken by the Ministers in question and, ultimately, the Executive. We will certainly give full and proper consideration to all the viable options before us.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. First, can the Minister give a categorical assurance that EMA will be retained? Would he consider including members of the Give and Take scheme on the entitlement list for EMA?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank Mr Maskey for his question. I can certainly give him a categorical assurance regarding the retention of EMA. We are not in the business of abolishing EMA but reforming it. I am certainly aware of the interest in extending EMA to pre-vocational schemes, and we had a detailed discussion about that in the House. There are a number of parity and legislative issues that we would have to consider. It is certainly not a simple issue for us. It is important to understand the rationale for introducing EMA in the first place. It was very much linked to full-time school and FE provision. We are aware of the concern that has been expressed about this. I would certainly like to see more money being invested in young people. We need to consider whether the extension of an EMA-type scheme is the most effective way of helping young people or whether other types of scheme may be more productive in achieving the result that most Members want to see.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I note the Minister said that his research suggests that EMA makes no difference to some two thirds of those in receipt of it. Can he inform the House of the total sum of money that we are talking about?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank Mr Nesbitt for his question. It is not so much my research but research by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which was commissioned back in 2010, that illustrated that. At present, the total budget for EMA is about £28 million or £29 million. It is in that range. Given the current economic situation in Northern Ireland and the financial pressures that face a lot of households, there is an upward pressure on EMA costs at present. However, there is potential for some efficiencies to be found and for money to be used for other more productive purposes.

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

Can the Minister tell us whether any areas of overlap have been identified between the ongoing review of EMA and the proposed strategy for young people not in education, employment or training (NEETs)? If so, what are they specifically?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

These are areas that we are extremely mindful of. The NEETs strategy is on schedule to be put before the Executive in April this year. It is important to stress that the work that we are undertaking with the Department of Education is a discrete piece of work on EMA, as it is currently conceived, that looks at different options around all that. The wider considerations that, I think, the Member is talking about will primarily be addressed through the NEETs strategy.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

6. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning for an update on the establishment of an engineering skills working group. (AQO 1581/11-15)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I recently identified manufacturing, specifically in relation to food processing, advanced engineering and advanced materials, as a priority sector for my Department in light of its importance to the rebalancing of Northern Ireland’s economy. Employers and their representative bodies from the advanced manufacturing sector have recently been expressing to me their concerns about a shortage of appropriately skilled engineers who are available to work in the industry. Skills are widely accepted as the key raw material in the modern knowledge-based economy, and they are one of the main drivers in achieving our economic goals. A matter of key importance to me is addressing identified skills shortages and skills mismatches in priority sectors. I have asked my adviser on employment and skills, Bill McGinnis, to meet a range of employers in the sector to discuss their specific skills needs. That will build on the findings of his report, ‘Identification of Priority Skill Areas for Northern Ireland’.

The adviser’s findings will form part of a scoping exercise to identify and examine the specific skills issues that face that diverse and complex sector. Recently, as part of that exercise, officials met a number of employers and their representatives to move the information-gathering process forward. When the scoping exercise is complete and the issues have been identified and analysed, I will take a decision on the appropriate way forward to ensure that effective action can be taken as soon as possible.

That work builds on work that is being advanced by my Department on skills shortages in the food-processing sector. I have established a future skills action group to identify the sector’s current and future skills needs. It is working on an action plan, which I expect to publish shortly.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. How soon will the working group be up and running? Will there be specific focus on rural areas where engineering has been a mainstay of the local economy?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank Mr Lynch for his question and his interest in the matter. At present, we are doing a scoping exercise. Certainly, I am pressing my officials to do that as quickly as possible because I am very aware of the issues that are coming through. Members of the House are also picking up on them. We will have to see what the precise means of intervention will be, based on evidence that comes before us, after that exercise is complete. It may well be a working group that is similar to the ICT working group that we are looking at currently.

With regard to the rural aspects of that, again, I am very mindful that the issue has been raised by a number of rural MLAs. In particular, we have heard proportionately more concerns being expressed from the west of Northern Ireland than from other parts. Certainly, we are very mindful of factoring that into our considerations.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

As we are discussing better engineering skills, I wonder whether the Minister would praise Ballyclare High School on its brave defensive skills, which failed to win it the schools’ cup yesterday. How will the scoping exercise affect schools?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I pay tribute to all schools involved in yesterday’s competitions, including my old school, Our Lady and St Patrick’s College, Knock, which was extremely successful in the football. We have great sporting prowess coming through, which is, again, very much to Northern Ireland’s advantage.

The Member’s specific point about schools is critical. Through the model that we are pursuing for ICT, we are trying to bring the Department of Education and the employers around the table to talk through the particular issues in the curriculum. If the issue is with the curriculum in schools, we will encourage intervention at that level, and if the problem lies in colleges and universities, our focus will be there. We will scope it out and follow the evidence.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

The Minister mentioned ICT in his response to an earlier question. Will he give the Assembly an update on the ICT working group?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank Mr McCarthy for his question. In some respects, the ICT working group may be the model for the way forward. The group has met twice and is due to meet again this Thursday. The various actors around the table are discussing a draft action plan. I hope that we will make a great deal of progress in finalising that over the next couple of months, with the intention of having a final action plan in place by June. This was always designed as a short, targeted intervention, rather than something that is drawn out and wastes people’s time. We want to see results as quickly as we can and are focused on a short timescale.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 7 has been withdrawn, question 8 was grouped with question 5, and questions 9 and 10 have been withdrawn.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

11. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning to outline the plans he has for the Step Ahead programme when funding ends. (AQO 1586/11-15)

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I was not expecting that.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

You are back again. I previously indicated to the Assembly my intention to reinstate a variant of the Step Ahead strand of the Steps to Work programme. However, the budget allocation for my Department in 2012-13 does not allow me to do so. A bid may be made for additional resources in the June monitoring round. If successful, it will allow me to introduce a variant of Step Ahead.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I am a little caught out. If the Step Ahead strand is replaced, how will it be made to work for local areas?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank Mr Kinahan for his supplementary question. That strand would be available across Northern Ireland. Through it, we would respond to the particular needs of the voluntary and community sector. As the Member will appreciate, the Step Ahead 2012 programme was introduced at the beginning of January for a 10-week period. That was a short-term, targeted intervention made possible through monitoring round moneys. It was targeted at 18- to 24-year-olds, lone parents and those over the age of 50.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member is not in her place for question 12.

Joe Byrne (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

13. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning whether his Department has had any discussions with trade union representatives regarding the proposed dissolution of the Department. (AQO 1588/11-15)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I recently met representatives of the Northern Ireland Committee, Irish Congress of Trade Unions (NICICTU) to discuss a range of employment law matters. The Northern Ireland Committee raised the issue of my Department’s dissolution and indicated that it would respond to the First Minister and deputy First Minister’s exercise to take the views of key stakeholders. The committee wanted to understand whether there would be any implications for staff. I should stress that any decision about the future of my Department will be taken by the Executive and the Assembly, not by me.

Joe Byrne (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will the Minister assure the unions that their considerations on future employment will be fully understood and accepted by the Executive?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank Mr Byrne for his question. It is a serious question, as the current uncertainty feeds through to employees thinking about their situations. Ultimately, those staff members are employees of the Northern Ireland Civil Service and will be treated and absorbed as such.

I have been at great pains to ensure proper communication in my Department, from the permanent secretary down through our human resources section. The door is very much open to employees to discuss the political situation and to reassure them about how the future will unfold. Hopefully, that has been a successful exercise. It is an area that we have chosen to be proactive in.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

1. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, given that Invest NI has handed back £39·1 million over the previous two monitoring rounds, what steps are being taken to re-examine its criteria for providing financial assistance. (AQO 1590/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The current uncertainty in global markets and challenging business conditions have resulted in many companies slowing down or deferring their investment plans in the immediate short term. That is entirely understandable and sensible, but the knock-on effect has been that support from Invest NI has not been drawn down in-year as originally intended. Invest NI is only a part funder of these projects, and I know that it has attempted, whenever possible, to work closely with affected companies to do everything possible to maximise project spend. In addition, Invest NI has also sought to mitigate the effect of the slowdown by allocating support to new projects or by accelerating other existing projects.

Recently, Invest NI launched various initiatives under the Boosting Business scheme in order to respond to the economic environment, including a fund to support business owners in creating jobs, developing skills and promoting exports. Various other measures have been introduced to respond to the harsh economic environment, including export promotion, research and development, ICT, and skills support. In addition, a number of practical business seminars have been held to help companies develop their efficiency and maximise potential opportunities.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. In my question, I was asking for some detail on whether Invest NI would re-examine its criteria for providing financial assistance. Is she confident that all is being done by Invest NI to maximise our job promotion strategy?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The answer to the second part of the question is yes. I am confident in that regard.

The Member will know that it is very difficult to change criteria that are regulated, as it were, by European selective financial assistance rules. We always have to be very careful that we do not breach those rules. Last year, however, in that context, we launched the Boosting Business programme, which tries to look at innovative ways of helping businesses, whether through seminars, as I mentioned in my substantive answer, through the jobs fund, or, indeed, through practical advice and assistance. He will also be aware that we recently launched our access to finance strategy, which has five funds to try to help with the gaps in access to finance that have developed as a result of the actions of the banks. I very much hope that those funds will make a difference to our small and medium-sized businesses, because there is an access to finance gap, which is becoming more of a problem for us in Northern Ireland.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Does the Minister agree that it would have been entirely reckless for Invest NI to have given out that money in the absence of other partner funders coming forward and that there is a duty on the body to ensure value for money for the taxpayer? Will she also comment on when the small business loan fund will come on stream to support those small businesses in our community?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We have tried to help with access to finance by having a number of schemes available, one of which is the Northern Ireland Spin Out (NISPO) fund; I always get that wrong by calling it the NIPSO fund. It has been operational since 2009 and has a total fund of £12 million. The co-investment fund, which has been operational since July 2011, has £16 million. The development fund, to which the Member referred, has £30 million of equity, and the growth loan fund has £50 million of unsecured debt. He will be aware that Braveheart Investment Group has been awarded that contract, and it is hoped that we will be able to start lending from that fund by May 2012, because I know that a lot of businesses are awaiting that. On the question of the handing back of money, as opposed to handing it out without rules and regulations, I am quite sure that the members of the Public Accounts Committee would not want to have to call us in to look at how we had spent the money. Instead, however, Invest NI gave the money back to the centre, and that, of course, enabled the resource to be redistributed to pressure areas, including health and education. It is important that Invest NI took those decisions promptly so that we were not left, at the end of the year, with money that we simply could not spend because of the economic circumstances in which we have found ourselves. I have no apologies to make for the way in which Invest NI has dealt with the matter. I support the way in which it has dealt with the matter. Because of the budgetary tightness that it finds itself in, it has to hand back money in-year and cannot hold it from year to year.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat. Given what the Minister said about some of the constraints when you are looking at the money going into other projects, can she give us an assurance that Invest NI could reprofile the money in other ways for job creation, such as through the jobs fund? Job creation is a very important aspect of building the economy and taking families out of poverty.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Indeed, that is what has happened with the Boosting Business scheme. As the Member knows, we were able to achieve £19 million for the jobs fund in the previous budgetary negotiations, and we are now able to augment that with our Boosting Business scheme, which gives practical advice. I met some companies recently that have been very complimentary about the advice and assistance that they received from Invest NI. That includes companies that, in the past, would not have been so-called Invest NI clients, such as those working in the social economy and those that are made up of one person who has felt under pressure. They have come to the focus on finance seminars and found them hugely beneficial, so that has been money well spent.

Dominic Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. What practical steps can be or are being taken to ensure that the underspend situation does not repeat itself, especially at a time when local businesses need all the financial assistance that they can get?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

On the matter of the underspend being repeated, I cannot, unfortunately, predict how much money the banks will make available for match funding to companies that want to grow. That is why we have brought about the growth loan fund, which, we hope, will allow some of those companies to grow. It is anticipated that the budget adjustments that we made in 2011-12 will not, hopefully, cause budget pressure for us in 2012-13. One of our difficulties is that, if we hand money back into the centre, the pressure for that money may come on us in the following year. A lot of these things have just been delayed as opposed to not happening at all, but we are content that we will be able to manage that in the coming years.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

2. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment what plans there are to promote golf tourism in North Down, particularly with Holywood being the home of the world number one golfer, Rory McIlroy. (AQO 1591/11-15)