Northern Ireland Assembly, 1 October 2012

299 contributions from 61 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I will take Mrs Cochrane's point of order, then Mr Bell's.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

Following the upset in the Chamber, last Tuesday evening, I wish to inform the House that I have since received an apology from Mr Wells, who, on reflection, recognised that his remarks went beyond what is acceptable in the cut and thrust of debate. I have accepted his apology. However, that does not excuse the behaviour of other Members of the House who were seen quite clearly on camera to resort to pack-like behaviour and to take pleasure in seeing someone upset. While some may be here for a political game, I am here to work. This is, therefore, a workplace. That type of bullying behaviour is not acceptable in any other workplace and should not be acceptable here. Mr Speaker, I ask, therefore, that you monitor that type of behaviour, as I feel very strongly that it is exactly the reason why many people, including women, with a great deal to offer Northern Ireland do not get involved in politics.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Let me first deal with the issue. As the Member said, she and Mr Wells met in my office last week, and Mr Wells gave a full and frank apology. I want to recognise that in the House. Let me also give credit to Mrs Cochrane, as she has dealt with the issue properly and not attempted to bring the Speaker into party politics. Far too often in the House, when, on reflection, Members know very well that they have said something they should not have said and admit to that, they then try to bring the Speaker into politics around the issue. That is something that I will not accept. I have to say that, on this occasion, that did not happen. This is how issues such as this should be dealt with. A Member might get caught up in the heat of debate, which is understandable, given the cut and thrust of debate in the House, but they should have the good grace to reflect and apologise when they are clearly out of line and out of order. Mr Wells did that at the outset. I have said in the House already that Mr Wells was very gracious in his apology, as was Mrs Cochrane, in accepting the apology.

As part of normal politics and the cut and thrust of the Chamber, Members should expect robust debate and expect to be challenged about what they say. There is nothing wrong with that. That is where the Deputy Speakers and myself should not get involved. Members of the House can defend themselves very well, especially when it comes to political debate in the Chamber. However, it is not acceptable when remarks are offensive, personal, bad mannered and ill tempered. Over the past few weeks, we have seen enough of that from all sides of the House. There is no doubt about that. The House should give leadership, and I ask all Members to reflect on whether their general behaviour in recent weeks has done justice to the Assembly and, especially, to the leadership that is expected from Members of the House.

Several times over recent weeks, I have reminded the House about the standards that are expected of good courtesy, good temper and moderation. I also ask Members to treat each other with courtesy and respect and to be mindful of the dignity of the Chamber in everything that they say. I hope that, over the next number of weeks, we will all learn lessons and I will not have to return to this matter.

Some Members continually want to rise in their place just to offend other Members. Therefore, as Mrs Cochrane said, I will monitor the situation. I will deal with the issue if a Member says something that he or she should not have said during the cut and thrust of debate. They should reflect on it and at least have the decency to apologise. Let us leave it there.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the weekend celebrations of the Ulster covenant, Northern Ireland saw one of the most dignified, solemn and massive demonstrations in our history. I do not want to over-egg the pudding, but, although there were tens of thousands of Union flags there on the day, the Union flag was not flying above this Building, which concerned many people. The Democratic Unionist Party opposed the Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 2000, which designated 17 days. There should be an additional day for Ulster day, and I would like the support of the House for Northern Ireland Office legislation, under the Secretary of State, to ensure that the Union flag flies above this Building on these significant days

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. That is not a point of order. Let us move on.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a further point of order, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I am not taking any further points of order on this issue. If it is a different point of order, I will be happy to take it, Mr Allister, but I am not prepared to take any further points of order on this issue. Let us move on. I know that the learned Member can be very shrewd in deciding on another point of order when it is really the same point of order. I ask the Member to reflect on what I said earlier on the issue that has already been raised in the Chamber. It is not a point of order, and I have already made that clear. Let us move on.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

As with similar motions, this will be treated as a business motion. Therefore, there will be no debate.

Resolved:

That Mr Stephen Moutray, Mrs Brenda Hale and Mr Paul Givan replace Mr William Humphrey, Mr Trevor Clarke and Mr Tom Buchanan as members of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister; that Mr William Humphrey replace Mrs Brenda Hale as a member of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure; that Mr Alastair Ross replace Mr Gregory Campbell as a member of the Committee for the Environment; that Mr Peter Weir and Mr David McIlveen replace Mr William Humphrey and Mr David Hilditch as members of the Committee for Finance and Personnel; that Mr William Humphrey and Mr Alex Easton replace Mr Peter Weir and Mr Sydney Anderson as members of the Committee for Justice; that Mr Gregory Campbell and Mr Sammy Douglas replace Mr Alex Easton and Mr Alastair Ross as members of the Committee for Social Development; that Mr Alex Easton replace Mr Stephen Moutray as a member of the Committee for Regional Development; that Mr David Hilditch and Mr Sydney Anderson replace Mr Sammy Douglas and Mr David McIlveen as members of the Committee for Employment and Learning; and that Mr Trevor Clarke replace Mr Alex Easton as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. — [Mr Weir.]

Ministerial Statement

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement to the Assembly on the commencement of a public consultation on the reform of adult care and support in Northern Ireland.

Care and support involves a wide range of services provided across government and is aimed at helping us to live an independent, healthy, active and inclusive life. Those services include adult social care, which is the responsibility of my Department, and social security benefits and help with housing, which are the responsibility of the Department for Social Development. Not everyone, of course, receives the same type or level of service, but the aim is for people to receive the service that meets their particular needs in the best way.

On Monday 17 September, my Department published a discussion document, 'Who Cares? The Future of Adult Care and Support in Northern Ireland'. At this stage, it contains no policy proposals; those will come later in the reform process. Rather, the aim of the document is to kick-start a debate with people in Northern Ireland on two key issues: first, what care and support services people we want to see in the future; and, secondly, where the balance of responsibility for care and support in the future should lie, between government, people who use services, carers and the wider community.

There is much that is good about the current care and support system. I want to recognise the contribution made by those who work in this area and on whom the estimated 23,000 people receiving domiciliary care and the 12,000 people who are supported in residential and nursing homes rely. I want to build on what is good and address what could be better.

Northern Ireland has the youngest population in the UK, but we are also ageing more quickly than Scotland, England or Wales. Although our population as a whole is projected to increase by 8% up to 2025, over the same period, our over-65 population is projected to increase by 42% and the over-85 population by 83%. Too often, discussion about the increasing number of older people is framed in a negative manner, as if older people were a burden on the rest of society. Let me put on record my view that our growing elderly population is one of our achievements and is to be celebrated. However, it has serious implications for demand for services. There will be a gradual increase in demand for support — yes, it is a challenging increase — but it becomes a significant problem only if those of us in government do nothing to prepare for it. I am determined that that will not happen.

Of course, with a bottomless pit of money, which we do not have, we might simply increase funding to try to keep pace with the growing demand for support. We are all aware of the financial difficulties that the world faces, and Northern Ireland is not immune from those. The days of guaranteed increases in funding are gone. However, I am convinced that we can use the funding that is available to better effect. Members will be aware that, in response to 'Transforming Your Care', Health and Social Care (HSC) is developing population plans that will propose changes to how services are delivered over the next five years. I believe that we must also now begin the process of considering the medium- and long-term challenges facing care and support. To that end, this discussion document sets out a draft vision for the care and support system of the future that recognises the role that we can all play in looking after our own health and well-being and seeks to empower us to do so.

We also know that many people do not know what support is available or how to access it, nor do they know about how that support is funded. That must change. At the very least, people need to know how to get help when they need it and how much social care and support cost in this country. We also need a system that recognises that we should provide support that, as far as possible, prevents problems occurring in the first place and seeks to restore independence where a problem has already occurred. By intervening early, by supporting people to do things for themselves and by helping them to relearn skills that may have been lost through, for example, a stroke or a fall, we can build an affordable and sustainable system of care and support that delivers the outcome that we all want to achieve: independence not dependence, empowerment not disablement.

We have also identified key principles that we believe should underpin the care and support system: affordability and sustainability; quality; dignity and respect for the individual; equality and diversity; human rights; safeguarding; and equity of access. We must ensure that we take advantage of the small size of Northern Ireland and remove any possible postcode lotteries. People should be assessed for care and support in the same way, for the same services, against the same eligibility criteria and with the expectation of receiving the same quality of care.

We also have to recognise that, although expectations of care and support have changed dramatically in the past 10 to 20 years, the actual foundations of care and support have not kept pace. There will always be a role for traditional services such as domiciliary care, residential care and nursing home care, but we need to discuss how we can give people more choice and control over the care and support that is available. That is how we can be more flexible and innovative in our approach to care and support. The choice that people have in the services that they receive and who provides that care and support, be it in the statutory, private or voluntary sector, is what really matters to them.

We also need to have a real discussion about how we balance meeting individual preferences for how care and support needs are met with the need for cost-effectiveness. In most cases, those demands are complementary, not competing. Providing support earlier is likely to be cheaper and to enable someone to remain independent for longer. However, we need to recognise that there are some cases in which it may be less expensive to provide care and support to an individual in a residential and nursing home when they may prefer to be supported in their own home. These are difficult, challenging issues, and we cannot afford to shy away from them if we are to have the full and frank discussion that, I believe, is needed.

We also need to discuss the respective roles of the main stakeholders. They are government, people who use services, carers and the wider community. Crucially, we need to talk about the funding underpinning care and support in the future and where the balance among those stakeholders should lie. In adult social care, we are already spending in excess of £810 million on services such as domiciliary care and residential and nursing homes.

Government also determines whether and how people contribute to the cost of care and support services. People who use services contribute over £100 million towards care and support, the bulk of which comes from people living in residential and nursing homes. That is because there is an inconsistent approach to charging for care and support services. Some services, such as domiciliary care, which around 23,000 people receive, are provided free. Some, such as meals on wheels, require a flat-rate contribution towards the cost, so everyone pays the same regardless of their ability to pay. Services such as residential and nursing home care are means-tested, with many clients required to contribute to the cost of their care in line with their ability to pay. That can mean that those with few assets give the majority of any income that they have as a contribution towards their care costs, while those with assets may have to sell their former home to meet the full cost of their care.

Underpinning it all, an army of carers give their time freely and willingly to care for loved ones. Carers NI has estimated that that care would be worth over £4 billion if it had to be provided by government. The system simply could not cope without the role played by carers, and we need a real discussion about how to support carers in their caring role.

Many people think that the current balance between government, people who use services, carers and the wider community is unfair — unfair because people mistakenly believe that all care and support is free at the point of delivery, like the NHS; unfair because some care and support services are free, while others require people to meet the full cost of their care subject to their ability to pay; unfair because the care and support service that supports the most vulnerable – residential and nursing homes – requires the greatest contributions; unfair because those who have assets often pay the full cost of their care and support until almost all their assets are used up, while those with little or no assets receive substantial financial support from government; and unfair because family members and friends take on so much caring responsibility but feel taken for granted and unsupported. In that context, we need to debate the fundamental issue of the role of care and support. Should it be a safety net for those who cannot look after themselves or a means of providing some protection for everyone against potentially large care costs? Where should care and support sit in the list of competing priorities such as education and job creation? Given the fact that it will not be possible to create a totally fair system, which of the issues that I mentioned are the highest priorities that need to be addressed?

The case for change, in demographic terms, is clear. There is a saying around making change happen that, if you keep on doing what you always did, you keep on getting what you always got. If we keep on doing what we have always done to provide adult care and support, we certainly will not get what we always got, because we will not be able to afford it. We need change so that we can continue to afford to meet the needs of very vulnerable people when they come to rely on state support. The need for that change to be influenced and steered by people in Northern Ireland cannot be overstated. This reform process is not just for grandparents or elderly parents. Yes, as we get older, our need for care and support increases, but we need to be thinking about and planning for what we want for ourselves in the future now. I urge everyone, young and old, to give serious thought to how care and support should be provided and funded in the future because, some day, the person needing care and support could be you or a loved one belonging to you. My Department is conducting a six-month consultation on this major issue, with 15 events being held around Northern Ireland. Whether or not people attend one of those events, I urge them to think about the issues and let us have their views.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the very detailed statement today. The Minister has gone some way towards giving us some detail on how the reform of adult social care will fit in. Can he give us detail, considering that it is due to go out to consultation, of how he sees the reform fitting in with the public health and 'Transforming Your Care' agendas? Will we see movement on this? I am delighted that he is looking at a six-month consultation, because this is a major issue. However, I am concerned that it might not fit in with the overall health and social care strategy. Will he give us details of what he means by the 15 events? I take it that they will be in most constituencies, with one in Belfast. If we are trying to get people involved in the consultation, we might need to look at other events.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The list of events will be published on the website. There are 15 events, as you said, and they are across Northern Ireland, from Omagh and Enniskillen in the west to Belfast and Newry in the east. We are covering most of Northern Ireland. I encourage people to take part.

'Transforming Your Care' is a five-year programme of change. This process is about reform beyond that period. Crucially, the reform will consider how care and support is paid for, which was not considered in detail in 'Transforming Your Care'. The review team has had some initial exchanges with the TYC team and looks forward to working more closely with it as the work develops.

You also mentioned the public health agenda, which is something that we really need to move forward. We need to get public buy-in because healthcare begins at home; it does not begin in a nursing home or a hospital. If we do not take better care of ourselves, we will have poor health, and poor health will ultimately lead to more support being required from the healthcare system. It is in everybody's interests — the individual and the system — that we continue to promote the public health agenda and that people buy into that.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

As the Minister knows, the Dilnot report was commissioned to look at this issue. Will he tell me what line his Department has taken in conjunction with Dilnot? What does he believe to be happening on the mainland of the United Kingdom in the Department of Health over there on this issue?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The consultation is stage 1 of our process. It does not contain any proposals at this stage; it is genuine consultation, going out to the public, getting feedback and then arriving at the next process, which will be stage 2. In developing options at stage 2, the Department will consider the broad range of ideas for reform, which will include the views put forward during the consultation period as well as developments in GB, such as the Dilnot Commission, which reported last year, and the White Paper that was published in July.

Adult social care is a critical issue. As I said, it costs us £810 million out of our budget of £4·5 billion, which is a huge amount of money. Is it best spent as we currently do it? Could we spend it better? How much more money will we need? All those questions need to be answered to identify the route that we take in the future. It is important that we work closely with all our colleagues to ensure that we get as good an understanding as possible to move the process forward.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his statement and his concern for the elderly in our population. Will he detail the proportion of people in residential care who pay entirely for their own care? On the other hand, what is the total cost to his Department of providing care to those who are below the assessed level of £23,500?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The average length of stay in a nursing home is 2·33 years, and the average cost of that care is around £52,000. The average length of stay in a residential care home is 4·51 years, and the average cost of that care is around £100,000. Of those who are in a nursing or residential home, 25% pay the full cost of their care. That figure consists of 11% private funders and 14% self-funders. The private funders are not placed by trusts; they make that choice themselves. A total of 13,000 people are in residential and nursing care, of which 10,700 are HSC-supported residents.

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

I welcome the principles that will underpin the new care and support system enunciated by the Minister. I particularly commend him for his commitment to a human rights-based approach to the provision of adult care and support. Does the Minister accept that, given our demographics in this region, that will inevitably mean that we will have to spend a lot more money on adult care and support in the years ahead? Does he also accept that it will mean that we will have to challenge ourselves to be able to offer a service that is free or as close as possible to it to everyone who needs it?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

If we continue to do it as we have done, of course it will cost more money. We have to look at whether there are other solutions that will allow us to use the money we have as cost-effectively as possible. Incrementally, the burden on the taxpayer will rise each year. Earlier, I gave the figures for the expected increase in the numbers of over-65s and over-85s by 2025. Thankfully, neither of us will fall into that category, but, all being well, some day we will get to the point of being in that older age bracket. The truth is that, if we continue to do it as we currently do, those increasing numbers will mean that the burden on the state will be very significant.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair)

In Northern Ireland, we provide domiciliary care free of charge. That is not the same as in GB. Changing that would take a brave politician; you would have to be very courageous to change that. On the other hand, we need to make a very strong case for why we should keep doing it. There are other challenges in health with, for example, neurological conditions, cancer treatments and so forth that people will want more investment in. If we are to continue to spend many millions of pounds supporting people in their own home, which does not happen in other parts of the UK, we have to make it very clear why we believe that that is a good use of our money. That is the difficult and challenging debate to be had. At the same time, we will have to look at how we can help people stay in their own home without adding to the cost. We are going down the route of telemonitoring, telemedicine and so forth. Those provide a bit of the answer, but they do not provide anywhere near all of it. We have to look at how we can do things somewhat differently and better utilise the services that we have to support people who need those services.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Like others, I welcome the statement, and I certainly welcome the absolute commitment by the Minister to support our elderly and infirm population. I have to pay tribute to the excellent work carried out in the community. However, I worry about the discrepancies that are already prevalent between the pay and conditions of trust staff and staff in the private sector. That was mentioned in the statement, and it worries me.

Will the Minister ensure that carers and social workers receive equal pay for equal work when looking after our elderly people in the community? Otherwise, our best carers will be lost and our elderly people will be the losers. Will the Minister tell the Assembly whether, at the end of this consultation, he and his Department will act on the result of the consultation with the people?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is not my responsibility to intervene in what the Member seeks me to intervene on. We operate in a free market; we do not operate in the former Soviet bloc. People go out and tender for work and pay their employees for the work that they carry out. That is not my responsibility; the market is responsible for setting that. Employers who do not treat their staff well — who give them a minimum wage and so forth — are those who have a regular turnover of staff because people do not stay with them. Generally, therefore, they do not provide the best service and are not the most popular residential or care homes. Many residential and care homes pay better and have a better consistency of staff and, consequently, have more people on the waiting list to get in. That system appears to me to work without interference from politicians.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he clarify how Northern Ireland funding reforms contrast to what is happening in England?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The main contrast is that, if you go into a residential or nursing home, you will be means-tested and will have to make a contribution if you have assets: that is the same throughout the UK. However, if you receive domiciliary care at home in Northern Ireland, it is received free of charge, whereas in England you would have to pay a contribution to your council. That is the main difference. That costs us tens of millions of pounds each year, and, as I indicated, I think it would be very difficult for any politician to change that. It would be hugely unpopular, and this House needs to take that into account. However, at the same time, we need to take these matters into consideration and have views expressed on this type of funding.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. It is very clear from the Tory agenda on welfare reform that many vulnerable groups will be targeted. One of those groups is carers, who play an important role, as you outlined in your statement. Can we be assured that the views of carers will be taken into account in this consultation and that they will not be impacted on as seems to be the case in relation to the Welfare Reform Bill that is coming through?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

As I indicated, Carers NI believes that the care provided in support voluntarily is to the value of around £4 billion. Although that may have received some embellishment, there is no doubt that we get billions of pounds' worth of support from carers. We, as a Government, cannot replicate that. In fact, we could not replicate the quality of care given by carers, which is carried out with something that outsiders could not provide, as it is carried out with a huge amount of love.

What carers do is absolutely essential and critical. There is often a basic unfairness about it all, and I have identified a number of issues where people believe there is unfairness in the system. Carers are absolutely vital to us. We cannot ignore the needs of carers. We would be failing in our duty if we did not provide some support to carers, because if the carers give up, then the full cost comes on to the system. It is absolutely critical that we support carers and hear their views, and that carers make a very significant contribution to the outcomes of this consultation.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement on this very important topic. Will he consider placing a cap on the total sum that anyone, regardless of circumstances, should have to contribute towards care?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Again, that goes back to the Dilnot review's proposals. I am aware that such an approach, in principle, is being considered by the coalition Government at Westminster, but they have been unable to identify the £1·7 billion that would be required to introduce it.

We will consider a number of options when we come to stage two of the reform process, but we will watch events closely and work closely with Westminster on the issue. Hopefully, they will go down the route of the cap, so that Barnett consequentials will kick in that will allow us to follow suit.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister's statement on a very important consultation on the future of adult social care. I note with interest the need for partnership and cross-departmental working on this issue specifically, as the Minister mentioned, through social security benefits and housing. Has he, or have his officials, examined best practice in adult social care in other countries?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

My departmental officials keep a watching brief on what happens in other jurisdictions around the world as to how best we can deliver adult social care. That work is always ongoing to identify what people are doing in other places.

Given what is happening in England in the wake of the Dilnot review, the £1·7 billion would be a lot of money to invest, but, at the same time, a lot of people have had virtually all their assets wiped out as a result of having to pay for the care that they have received We have to give consideration to the inherent unfairness of the fact that people have worked extremely hard to build up their assets only to find that they are all wiped out. However, that is just one of the unfair things that people will look at. There are many other aspects of caring for adults, and particularly elderly people, where fairness and equity are an issue. That is something that we need to continue to work on in this report.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Why can people in England claim back care home fees but people in Northern Ireland cannot?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The reimbursement scheme in England is designed to deal with incorrect decisions on eligibility for continuing healthcare. Where assessments have proved to be wrong, families can claim back fees. We in Northern Ireland have not experienced the same difficulties as England in our integrated health and social care system in the first instance. That is why no formal reimbursement scheme has been introduced here. However, where people are unhappy about the outcome of an assessment, they can request a review of their needs from their health and social care trust.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

Would the Minister be minded to increase the £23,000-odd assets threshold above which service users are currently forced to pay for residential and nursing care?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is certainly something that merits consideration. We are not at the point of developing specific proposals for reform, but I suspect that there will be contributors who will suggest that we should look at that. It is certainly something that we will look at in the next stage of the process, once we have had the opportunity to ascertain the wide views of people from Northern Ireland, because there will be a whole range of issues on which people have views to express. All those will have to be assessed and measured against one another before we start to put proposals on paper.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I note that we currently spend in excess of £810 million on adult social care. What is the current breakdown of overall spending in Northern Ireland on residential, nursing home and domiciliary care?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Of the £811 million that was spent in 2010-11, £265 million was spent on nursing home care, £203 million on domiciliary care, £160 million on residential care and the remaining £183 million on services such as day care and social work.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom ráiteas a dhéanamh faoin athbhreithniú ar cháilíochtaí GCSE agus A leibhéal. Mr Speaker, I want to make a statement regarding a review of GCSE and A-level qualifications.

Bhí an-chuid díospóireachta le déanaí faoi chinntí a glacadh i Sasana faoi na scrúduithe GCSE. There has been much debate recently about decisions taken in England in respect of GCSE examinations. That has generated a lot of speculation about whether we should follow suit. I am pleased to be able to update the Assembly with my decision for a review of GCSE and A-level qualifications to be undertaken.

As Members will know, education is a devolved matter. It is entirely appropriate that we should take our own decisions about the way forward for learners here. My focus will always be on putting pupils first in the education system and making sure that their needs are at the forefront of everything that we do.

The review builds on my Department's work to date. Legislation is in place to introduce the entitlement framework in 2013, which will provide greater choice to meet the needs of our children at Key Stage 4 and at post-16. We have a literacy and numeracy strategy that is central to the development of those essential skills among pupils throughout primary and post-primary learning. We are introducing new assessment arrangements at Key Stages 1 to 3 that complement and support the key aims of the revised curriculum, embracing the assessment of skills, knowledge and understanding. We are focusing on the needs, aptitudes and aspirations of all our children, including those with special educational needs. We have a school improvement policy that recognises the essential role played by our teachers in delivering high-quality educational outcomes for all pupils.

However, this is only a starting point. To underpin the existing policies, there is now a pressing need to consider what assessment or qualifications we want to provide to young people leaving school at the ages of 16 and 18 and to question whether the current suite of GCSEs and A levels is the most appropriate system.

The past 12 to 18 months has seen unprecedented levels of change and uncertainty in the qualifications system, with a series of examination errors in 2011, changes to GCSEs, proposed changes to A levels in England, concerns over grade boundaries this year, and further proposed changes to GCSEs in England. I believe that the time is right for us to take stock of our examination system and consider whether change is now desirable or necessary. Leanfaidh mé orm ag obair ar an treo-phrionsabal, rud atá ar son leas ár bpáistí.

I will continue to work on the guiding principle of doing what is in the best interests of our children. Proposed changes to GCSEs and A levels in England present an opportunity for all involved in education here, including our pupils, to consider how best the examination system meets the needs of our children as well as the needs of our economy. I also want to reassure all pupils who are studying for GCSEs or A levels that the examination process they are currently involved in is fit for purpose. Past pupils of our examination system should be proud of their qualifications.

My vision is for our education system to be internationally recognised as world-class. I do not wish to initiate change for change’s sake. If the current suite of qualifications at Key Stages 4 and 5 is deemed to be appropriate, I will be content to stick with what we have. However, I want to satisfy myself, through quantitative and qualitative research involving key stakeholders across the education and business sectors, that that is the case.

Consequently, I am commissioning a review of GCSE and A-level qualifications here to ensure that they will continue to meet our economic and societal needs now and in the future. I am asking the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) to take forward the review. I have asked the CCEA to provide two interim reports, the first in January 2013 and the second in March 2013. I will receive the final report in June 2013, after which I will consider the findings and recommendations and update the Assembly on the way forward. The terms of reference for the review will be published today.

This will be one of the most important pieces of work on our examination system to be undertaken in the past 25 years. A lot has happened since GCSEs were introduced in 1986, and we have a come a long way, particularly in the past decade. With the Assembly now in its second term, the public here rightly expect, and deserve, a dynamic, self-assured and confident education system that is capable of providing our young people with the passport that is necessary to give them their rite of passage to further education, higher education or employment.

Qualifications are a recognition of pupils’ attainment, and I am determined that whatever we produce will be comparable to other equivalent qualifications that are offered, not only across these islands but internationally, now and for the foreseeable future.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

Does the Minister still believe, as he did earlier this year, that it is vital that the standard of our exams remains exactly the same as that in England?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Yes — well, maybe not exactly the same; perhaps better. I think that students and prospective employees here have to be confident that the qualification certificates that they carry are equal to, if not better than, those from any other qualification system across these islands. It is a duty on the Assembly, my Department and, indeed, me, as Minister, to provide them with that confidence. I want to ensure that, whatever qualification system we decide on at the end of the review, our students have qualifications that are portable, transferable and able to work either across these islands or internationally.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister's statement. Will he outline some of the areas where change may be desirable or necessary to create an examinations system that meets the needs of our children and our economy?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

As I said in my statement, I am reasonably content that our GSCE and A-level systems meet the needs of our society and our economy. However, Michael Gove's announcement that he will break the three-jurisdiction ownership of GCSEs and perhaps A levels means that we as an Assembly, and I, as a Minister, have a duty to review our qualifications system. As I said in my previous answer, I want to ensure that those qualifications are robust and transferable.

The review will look at all aspects of the qualifications system. I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the review. The terms of reference will ensure that the body that is set up will take on board the views that are expressed by and be representative of not only the Department of Education, which I am responsible for, but further and higher education and the business sector. I would like them to closely examine each part of our examination system and to take a look at it to see whether it meets the needs of society and education and whether it is a true test of the ability of each individual student who passes those tests.

So, it is all up for grabs. It is up to the review body, under the terms of reference, to examine all aspects of the qualifications system.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

I also thank the Minister for his statement. Does he agree that the entitlement framework itself needs to be reviewed in parallel with the review that he announced today so that it does not provide a cage around any future exam structures?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

No, I do not agree. The exams system will reflect our curriculum. It will be based on our current curriculum, and I have no plans to review the curriculum as it is currently constituted. The entitlement framework has come into statute. As I set out in my statement to the Assembly in September last year, the framework will flow out and become fully applicable by 2015. So, exams systems should be based on the curriculum that is delivered to the young people involved. That is exactly what will happen as part of this review.

Seán Rogers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I particularly welcome his reassurance to our GSCE and A-level students, past and present. What input will schools have into this review?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The review will speak to key stakeholders in our education system, and schools are key stakeholders in our examinations system. Therefore, there will be an avenue for our schools and our school leaders, teachers and pupils to have an input into the outcomes of the review. I will study the review and assure myself that stakeholders have been spoken too.

However, I have to say that a consultation is not a negotiation. A consultation is when you go out and listen to key stakeholders' views. The review itself will then have to come to decisions, and I, as Minister, will also have to then make decisions. Certainly, our schools' voices will be heard through the process.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Is the CCEA the right body to carry out the review, given that it is the regulator and provider of examinations? Is that a conflict of interest?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Member asks a very pertinent question, and I did ponder that. However, I am satisfied that the CCEA, as the statutory body responsible for qualifications in this jurisdiction, is the most appropriate body to carry out the review. The review will be carried out by people who are appointed by the CCEA. They will report back to the CCEA board, which will then report to me. It is a valid question, and I have studied the issue. As I said, however, the CCEA is the statutory body responsible for examinations, so it is the right body to carry out the review.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his answers to date and for his statement. Will he expand on what opportunities the review may present for students? What opportunities will there be in the review to ensure that our students stay here on these islands?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

As I said in my statement, I am reasonably content that GCSEs and A levels have proven to be robust examinations of individual students' abilities. Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Education in England, has made a decision to break away from the three-jurisdiction ownership of GCSEs and A levels. That is regrettable, and I believe that there was a better way forward. I have had discussions with my Welsh counterpart, Leighton Andrews. I cannot speak on his behalf, but he has expressed his concerns about how the process has been handled. The Welsh are moving forward and, indeed, are involved in a review, which will report back around November. No doubt, Minister Andrews will then make his views known on the way forward for examination systems in Wales. Over the summer, I visited Scotland and was very impressed with the Scottish model for its national qualifications. That was a very interesting visit. I have regular contact with my colleague Ruairi Quinn of the Dublin Government, and I am aware of the examination system in the South.

This is an opportunity, in the sense that the actions of Michael Gove have forced the Administrations to take their own action, so we will examine the GCSE and A-level system from a research point of view. That will not be based on a political philosophy or anything else. Rather, let us review on the basis of research and of examination of the system, and if we can do it better, let us do it better.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I share some of the Minister's concerns about the links being broken with England. Will he assure the House that, whatever comes out of the review, exams will remain equivalent to whatever examination system comes into being in England? That is vital to those who wish to avail themselves of any further education in England.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The simple answer is yes. It makes no educational, economic or any other sense not to have our examinations equivalent to the English model, the Welsh model, the Scottish model and, indeed, the Southern model. Whatever our points of view are on the relationship between England and us, there has long been a strong relationship, in that students, employers and potential employees have gone to England to find work or to study. I have no wish to put a barrier to that in place . I want to ensure that students be given the flexibility to do that. As I said in response to the previous question, it is regrettable that Michael Gove has taken the actions in the way in which he has taken them. There was a better way of doing it, but, as I have said previously in the House, he had every authority to act in the way in which he did. We are where we are. We will carry out a review, and I assure the Member that we will ensure that our examination system is comparable to England's system.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Is it not clear that GCSEs as they are are too weak a tool to command educational and employer respect and, as such, that more rigorous exams are necessary? Given that most of the rest of the United Kingdom is now moving in that direction, surely it would be wholly prejudicial to our students to seek to hold to what would then be seen as dumbed-down exams. Can the Minister assure us that that is not an option and will not be taken?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

None of the research backs up the Member's comment that GCSEs are — and I do not think that I am quoting him directly — a discredited exams process. There are points of view and much debate on the matter, but none of the research suggests that GCSEs have failed to carry out the function of an exam, which is to test an individual's ability to learn and to carry out functions. I do not accept that premise.

I have said publicly that the actions of Michael Gove may have fatally flawed the GCSE product, and that perception may continue to build and grow. I certainly do not want any young person to leave our examinations system with a certificate that may, for all the wrong reasons, be looked down upon. I want our young people to leave our education system with qualifications that they can be proud of and that are portable and transferable across these islands and much further afield. I have no interest in dumbing down any examinations process. It does no favours to the individual, our society or our economy.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

As Chair of the Education Committee, I welcome the Minister's announcement and look forward to seeing the terms of reference, which the Committee will scrutinise later this week.

Speaking as a Member, I follow on from the point made by the Member for South Belfast. CCEA has a track record of lateness in providing robust information to, for example, the Education Committee. It took a decision on the future of GCSEs over the summer, and the Committee is still awaiting evidence-based papers from that organisation. What confidence has the Minister that CCEA will be able to command the respect of stakeholders during the review to ensure that we get the proper and factual position on what we need to do, which is to come up with a Northern Ireland-based answer to the problem? Secondly, what plans has he to meet Michael Gove to discuss that issue?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for his question. The terms of reference will be shared with the Education Committee later this afternoon before being published.

I am setting the terms of reference for the review, and CCEA is, therefore, answerable to the House through the Department and my good self. I have asked for interim reports, but not because I believe that CCEA is not capable of the task. If I thought that that were so, it would not be carrying out the review. Interim reports will come to my Department, and we will be able to monitor the review's progress against the terms of reference and reassure ourselves that stakeholders are being spoken to and that work is ongoing. If CCEA is of the view that it needs to extend the terms of reference or that another element needs to be taken on board, the Department will take that into consideration.

I have every confidence that CCEA will be able to carry out a robust task, but, at the end of the day, the decisions will be for my Department, and I, as Minister, will make the decisions about the future direction of travel of our examinations system based on robust evidence and interrogation of all other systems and proposals.

This may seem strange coming from me as a republican, but I have asked to meet Michael Gove and he has refused to meet me. It is not the case that I have a phobia about meeting Michael Gove. We may not be on the same page on many things, but he has refused to meet me, and I understand that he has also refused to meet the Welsh Education Minister on the subject of exams. He has offered me a meeting with one of his junior Ministers and, setting my ego aside, I may well take him up on that offer. However, I believe that Michael Gove, as Secretary of State for Education in England, should meet his counterparts. I cannot speak on behalf of the Welsh counterpart, but I certainly believe that he should meet me.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister and welcome the review that he announced today. I note that he said in his answer to Sean Rogers that it is not a negotiation. Will he put in place a proper review that, before we get to consultation, properly consults and discusses the matter with teachers? That is the message that we got from them last week on area planning. They do not feel that they are being talked to, listened to or are a part of it, and they believe that consultation tends to be a one-way process.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Let me clarify my use of the term "negotiation". Ministers are elected to make decisions. That is the reality; that is the democratic pathway. However, I want to make decisions based on real consultation with the sectors out there. I say that it is not a negotiation because I am familiar with other programmes of work that have taken place elsewhere which have stalled because those in charge of the consultation have bogged themselves down in a negotiation, instead of going in and consulting with people, taking on board their views, agreeing or disagreeing with them, and moving on. That is where we need to be. Whether in area planning or the review of examinations, I want people's views taken on board. If CCEA disagrees with them, I want to know why. Then, I, as Minister, will make the final decision on the way forward.

Executive Committee Business

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I beg to introduce the Welfare Reform Bill [NIA 13/11-15], which is a Bill to make provision for universal credit and personal independence payment; to make other provision about social security; to make provision about child support maintenance and the use of jobcentres; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Private Members' Business

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

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

I inform Members that a valid petition of concern in relation to the motion was presented on Friday 28 September. I therefore remind Members that the effect of the petition is that any vote on the motion shall be on a cross-community basis.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I beg to move

That this Assembly believes that all couples, including those of the same sex, should have the right to marry in the eyes of the state and that, while the rights of religious institutions to define, observe and practise marriage within their beliefs should be given legal protection, all married couples, including those of the same sex, should have the same legal entitlement to the protections, responsibilities, rights, obligations and benefits afforded by the legal institution of marriage; calls on the Minister of Finance and Personnel to introduce legislation to guarantee that couples of any sex or gender identity receive equal benefit; and further calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to ensure that all legislation adheres to the Government’s commitments to protect equality for all.

Most of us in the Chamber and wider society have the opportunity to marry the person we love and are committed to. Whether in a civil or religious ceremony, we have that choice. Whether the motion is passed, and whether we legislate for equal marriage, will have little or no impact on our lives. However, there are those who happen to love and wish to commit to someone of the same sex, and they are currently denied the opportunity to marry. We as an Assembly have the opportunity to say that we see those couples as equal, and see their love as equal. We can send a message today that those in same-sex relationships should be treated equally and fairly in our society. This is very much an issue of equality.

I agree with those who say that this is also an issue of religious freedom. The law currently defines marriage in such a way that denies religious institutions the freedom to choose to define marriage within their own values. Even churches such as All Souls' Church in Belfast cannot perform either same-sex civil partnership or same-sex marriage ceremonies because the law currently denies them that religious freedom. Equally, we have an absurdity in the law: an atheist couple of different sex may, if they choose, have a religious ceremony, yet a devout Christian couple who happen to be of the same sex cannot even have hymns played or have any religious overtones to their civil partnership, if they choose to go down that line.

As well as enhancing religious freedoms, the motion seeks to enhance religious protections. I know that there is concern out there that if we legislate to allow same-sex marriage, Churches will, somehow, be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies. I want to make it clear that that will not be the case. Currently, 11 countries legislate for same-sex marriages, and there have been no instances of the Church being required to perform same-sex ceremonies against its will. Indeed, there have been many instances where the state definition of marriage and the religious institutions' definition of marriage has been different. Some churches will not marry two people of different religions because they do not see that as being within the value of their church, and that is their right, yet the state will still perform marriages between two people of different religions. Equally, those who are divorced cannot be remarried in some churches, but the state will marry divorcees. Again, no church is forced to marry people who have been divorced if that is against the will of that institution. Importantly, the state has respected the Church's right to define practice and observe marriage within the bounds of its own belief system.

I assure those who fear other consequences and fear that their religious freedoms would be denied if same-sex marriages were allowed that I would only support legislation that ensured that that could not be imposed on a religious institution. Passing the motion will not stop people having a personal view on how they perceive and define marriage, but it will improve the life of significant numbers of people in our society who value the institution of marriage and wish to get married. So, as well as being a motion of equality, it is a motion about religious freedom and protection.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I will indeed.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I was just wondering how far the Member's aspirations about equality go because, if you start with the principle that, historically, marriage has been the union between one man and one woman, and you now say that it can be a union between one man and another man or one woman and another man, and you say that on the basis of equality, what about the man who says, "I'm in love with two women; I want to marry two women"? Does it become a question of equality that we have to then authorise polygamy? Does it not take us back to the point that you have to have a moral root upon which you base legislation, and that is the historically trusted route that a marriage is a union between one man and one woman? If you start to go down the Member's road, where do you finish?

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I thank the Member for his intervention, because it gives me the opportunity to clear up that point. He talked about the tradition of marriage. As I have stated already, the institution of marriage has changed a number of times over the years in terms of how it is legally defined, including legislation to allow for divorce, mixed-race marriages and marriage between two people of different religions. As regards the issue of polygamy, this is about equality saying that couples, whether they are same sex or different sex, should have equal treatment. A marriage between a man and multiple women is not equal to a relationship between two consenting adults. Indeed, there is sociological evidence that, in societies where a man is allowed to have multiple wives, society is damaged. That is a very separate issue, because there is no equal evidence to suggest that allowing same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage in any way harms society.

I have also heard concerns that, somehow, same-sex marriage would lessen the institution of marriage. I hear it, and I believe that it is a genuine concern, but I do not share that concern. Those who campaign for same-sex marriage, particularly those in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered (LGBT) community who seek the opportunity to marry, are committed to the institution of marriage, which is precisely why they campaign to have the opportunity to marry extended to their relationship.

It is important that we are debating this today and addressing these issues, because it is a debate that is taking place across the UK. I think it is telling that a Conservative Prime Minister, the leader of a party that has arguably done more than any other to promote the institution of marriage, is now coming out in favour of same-sex marriage. It is very rarely that I will quote David Cameron in support of one of my principles, but, in this case, I think it is important to recognise that this issue has stretched across parties, including the Labour Party, the Lib Dems, the Conservative Party and the SNP in Scotland. David Cameron said:

"Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative."

I concur with the Prime Minister's view on that. Extending the right to marriage to same-sex couples will strengthen the institution of marriage. As well as being a motion about equality and one that seeks to enhance religious freedom, this is a motion that seeks to strengthen the institution of marriage.

I hope today's debate will be a responsible one, because it is important that the Northern Ireland Assembly sends out the right message on this issue. The motion will not have a direct impact on anyone outside the LGBT community. Those in the LGBT community still face discrimination in our society. A survey was conducted in which a quarter of gay people said that they face homophobia in the workplace and a quarter said that they feel that they have to hide their sexual identity in the workplace. Gay people are much more likely to suffer mental ill health, and a recent survey showed that one quarter of gay young men said that they had attempted suicide. So, today, it is important that our language is moderate and respectful and that Members remember those issues.

I call on all in the House to support the motion and, in doing so, to support a motion that seeks to create equality in our society, enhance religious freedom, support the institution of marriage and to send out a message to all those in the gay community that the Northern Ireland Assembly believes that they should be able to live in safety, freedom —

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

The Member's time is up.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

— and freedom from discrimination and that it is committed to a shared society for all.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I rise on behalf of my party to oppose the motion, not because we oppose anyone or how they choose to lead their life but, rather, because of what we support, and we support the institution of marriage. I want to say at the outset that my party believes passionately in equality. Indeed, one of the founding principles of the DUP is that all people are equal under the law and equally subject to the law.

We on this side of the House take equality seriously. This debate is not about demoralising or marginalising anyone, but neither is it truly about equality. To use the word "equality" when referring to marriage is to suggest that marriage is in some way unequal or discriminatory. That is not the case. Marriage is a complementary union between a man and a woman. This is not a debate about equality; rather it is a debate about redefining the centuries-old meaning of the word "marriage". It is simply a myth that this is an equality issue, as equality already exists. People are free by marriage or civil partnership to take on the same rights and bear the same legal burdens, no matter what type of relationship they choose to enter into. Moreover, everyone is free to choose to marry. There is no bar or prohibition on marriage. People are free to marry provided they marry someone who is of the opposite sex. It is time to tear down the smokescreen that this is about discrimination. The equality issue is settled.

So, what is at stake in this debate? In our law, the word "marriage" was defined in the case of Hyde v Hyde in 1866. The court held that marriage was:

"the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others"

The reasons for defining marriage in this way are simple. Marriage is not simply about the individuals who are getting married. Marriage is about the future and the future generations who will be safeguarded by voluntary and exclusive relationships. Marriage, then, is not really about the participants; it is about the nurturing of children. To redefine marriage is to redefine society. To redefine the word "marriage" is to say that society is not about safeguarding the future but rather about the needs of the here and now. To redefine marriage is to change the point of focus from looking to the future to looking only at ourselves and our need. That is not the type of society that we want to build in the Assembly. Marriage is more than love and commitment. It is more than a publicly declared contract; it is about the future.

Graeme Archer, himself a declared gay man, said in 'The Daily Telegraph' on 5 May 2012:

"Deliberately to engineer children who cannot, by definition, have the advantage of a traditional family, in the hope that this brave new cohort will fashion into existence a 'more equal' society ... is, and I don't use the word lightly, irrational."

He says that this:

" — for gay people, as well as for those who won't, or can't, marry — is about self-acceptance ... It does take a village to raise a child. But the process should start with a mother, and a father."

This is not some narrow and bigoted view. Article 16 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as upheld by the UN Human Rights Committee, defends this view of marriage. In European law, article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights upholds the same definition, and the court has deemed this to be not a matter of equality but rather a matter for individual state law.

The motion states that safeguards should be put in place for Churches, but countless legal opinions, such as that of Aidan O'Neill QC, a leading human rights lawyer, raise the issue of the far-reaching problems for Churches that refuse to perform non-traditional marriage ceremonies. Churches could be debarred from the use of public buildings for youth clubs or from accessing public money, not to mention the Christian parents who would be debarred from removing their children from classes in schools that teach about redefined marriage. No matter what some in the Alliance Party, the Ulster Unionist Party or the SDLP tell us, Churches, church groups and Christians — in fact, any person from a faith community — will be in a significantly diminished position as a result of any legal change.

The question we are really asking today is this: what sort of society do you want to build? Is it a society that looks forward and that truly protects the rights of all, or a society that narrowly redefines an institution for temporary gain? I know what type of society I want to be part of, and it is a society that is truly inclusive and that looks to the next generation. That is why we on this side of the House will oppose the motion.

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

Order. As this is the first debate in which the Assembly will hear from Ms Bronwyn McGahan, I would remind the House that it is the convention that a maiden speech is made without interruption.

Bronwyn McGahan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. As you quite rightly said, this is the first opportunity that I have had to participate in a debate, and I thank you for giving me time to say a few words.

Members will be aware that I was co-opted to my position in the Assembly to replace Michelle Gildernew, and I want to pay tribute to Michelle. She served as an MLA for Fermanagh and South Tyrone from 1998, and she gave 14 years' service to our constituency. She continues in her role as MP for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I also want to thank my Sinn Féin colleagues here in the Assembly team and in Fermanagh and South Tyrone for selecting me for this position. I give special thanks to Assembly staff and officials. I have found them to be very helpful in enabling me to settle down and find my way around.

I speak as a republican, and one of the principles of the 1916 proclamation is a guarantee of religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all citizens. This was the first mention of gender equality, given that Irish women under British law were not allowed to vote. Another important principle is a promise to cherish all the children of the nation equally. It is in that context that the motion aspires to move us towards a more equal and tolerant society. I recognise that there are deeply held views on this issue, but we cannot pretend to be for equality and add the word "but" if we are genuine in wanting to create a society of equals.

There have been many homophobic attacks. Indeed, in my constituency, a young man was murdered because he was openly gay. If we fail with this motion, we are sending out the message that members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community are not equal and we will be creating conditions in which their basic rights are eroded and attacks on their community become acceptable.

Inequality is a manifestation of differences among people across a range of quality of life indicators. This island has experienced enough division and hatred without perpetuating any other divisions.

The motion is simply about one thing: if two consenting adults want to get married, regardless of gender, they should not be hindered in doing so. I ask the House to support the motion.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I declare an interest as a committee member of Raloo Presbyterian Church. I do so because I believe that same-sex marriage legislation could have implications for many Churches throughout Northern Ireland.

Marriage is a recognised institution where a religious or civic commitment is voluntarily given between a man and a woman to share their lives and property. A stable household and positive male and female role models are recognised as important in a child's development. I and many others have very strong views on this matter. The Ulster Unionist Party has recognised this issue as one of conscience, so all members are entitled to vote according to their conscience.

The Civil Partnership Act 2004 legalised same-sex or civil partnerships in Northern Ireland. However, recently, the Home Secretary, the Rt Hon Theresa May MP, stated:

"Same-sex couples now receive access to equivalent legal rights".

She then added:

"bar the ability to be able to be married and to say that they are married."

The Assembly Research and Information Service paper states:

"Civil partners have the same rights and responsibilities as married couples in many areas including tax, social security, inheritance and workplace benefits."

However, the implications of introducing same-sex marriage are much more significant than merely changing the symbolic description of marriage. In its briefing paper, the Coalition for Marriage highlights that the word "marriage" appears some 3,000 times in UK legislation and that associated words such as "husband", "wife", "father" and "mother" also appear several thousand times. It points out that it is not possible to change the meaning of marriage without far-reaching consequences.

I believe that the motion is flawed. I also believe that it will not be possible to deliver same-sex marriage and to guarantee the protection of religious rights. Indeed, I believe that it will endanger civil and religious rights.

Some Members suggest that faith groups should not be concerned about the proposals to introduce same-sex marriage, as protections will be built in for those groups. However, I note that, in the consultation paper for England and Wales, the advice is that:

"no Church of England minister should face a successful legal challenge for refusing to conduct a same-sex religious marriage."

There is not much certainty in that statement.

Aside from one's moral viewpoint on the rights and wrongs of same-sex marriage, I believe that the key issue is the unintended consequences for religious liberty. Any decision to introduce same-sex marriage is likely to have implications for me, for my Church and, indeed, for every religious organisation in Northern Ireland, as well as for an individual's fundamental freedom of religious expression. It is deeply disturbing that civil and religious liberties in the UK could be threatened by this proposed change.

Concerns about the proposed change to the definition of marriage have been expressed by the general board of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Church of Ireland General Synod, legal advisers to the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, a host of other Protestant reform Churches, the Muslim Council of Britain, and Lord Singh, who is head of the Network of Sikh Organisations. So, why the concern? At present, a European Court ruling based on the current definition of marriage and of civil partnerships indicates that human rights are met by the status quo. However, should the definition of marriage be changed, the protection of religious groups to restrict marriage to between a man and a woman is likely to be challenged. I note that Adam Wagner, of UK Human Rights Blog, states:

"It may be that once a state decides to implement gay marriage, the court will be less cautious in ruling on how exactly the rules are implemented."

The Church of England has indicated that, even if a mutually acceptable legislative solution could be found, it cannot be assumed that such a solution would withstand subsequent challenge, whether in our domestic courts or in Strasbourg. Leading human rights lawyer Aidan O'Neill QC indicates that equality legislation could result in Church chaplains being dismissed from hospitals for expressing their religious views, teachers having to utilise "John lives with Dick and David"-type books, and a host of other things. You think it impossible that that would happen? Remember that Relate, the Roman Catholic adoption agency —

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

Bring your remarks to a close, please.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

— closed its doors rather than breach its beliefs and allow same-sex couples to adopt.

I oppose the creation of same-sex marriage and support the existing concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The motion before the House is very welcome. I recognise that there will be strongly and genuinely held views on both sides of the argument. I hope that the spirit and conduct of the debate is cognisant of that and we do not stray into disrespectful or fundamentalist language on either side. Those of us in favour of the motion need to be sensitive, aware and responsive to the arguments and sentiments of those who are opposed. In that vein, I deem that the words of the current Irish EU Commissioner, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, are helpful. Speaking in another place, as Minister for Justice in 1993, regarding the decriminalisation of homosexuality, she eloquently identified that the:

"process of change is not easy and, understandably, many people worry that the traditional values which they hold so dear, and many of which are fundamentally sound, are under siege from emerging modern realities. But, of course, it is not a matter of laying siege to all the old certainties, nor is it a matter of jettisoning sound values simply to run with a current tide of demand".

It is important that those who hold genuine concerns about same-sex marriage are assured that it will not detract from, devalue or diminish their own moral principles or the theological tenets of religious institutions. It is not about the imposition or forcing of social mores. It is not a case of a shotgun marriage between theological tradition and ever-changing social and societal compositions. Each has a place of respect and the right of respect. It is important to note that the motion calls for the respect and legal protection of religious institutions, and allows them to define and practise marriage within their beliefs. I am not of the belief, however, that the existence of one set of societal values or compositions corrodes the strength, status or symbol of any other.

In essence, the extension of the statutory recognition of marriage to same-sex couples is an affirmation of the enduring importance of marriage. The sinews of bondage between two people, encased and sustained by the growing nature of love, is a value worthy of extension to those who would choose it. Heterosexual marriage embodies those values; so too does same-sex marriage. It is all the more important given the modern fashion of a pervasive individualism advocating and instilling an 'Atlas Shrugged' view of our world. The recognition and extension of equal marriage is ultimately about the conservation of those same values of loving inter-reliance. It is about the preservation of those values.

It is the role of the state to meet the requests of same-sex couples who want the recognition afforded to other couples. It is, I believe, worthy and right that statutory recognition be given at this time. That is not because of a trend or the tide of demand, but because it is the right thing to do and the right thing for the state to recognise.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I welcome the opportunity to debate the issue in the Assembly. The Alliance Party supports the motion, which is very much in line with policy that was recently passed by our governing party council after a period of internal and external consultation.

In keeping with our core commitment to equality and freedom of religion, we support the extension of civil marriage provisions to same-sex couples. However, we are very clear in stressing that robust protections are provided and encapsulated in legislation to ensure that faith groups and religious celebrants will not be forced to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies or to have them conducted on their premises. At the same time, we further believe that faith groups that, in conscience, wish to marry same-sex couples, should not be prevented by the state from doing so. The All-Souls' Non-Subscribing Presbyterian Church in my constituency of South Belfast regularly gives blessings for gay and lesbian couples after their civil partnership. Such churches may welcome those couples in future. However, we are clear that there must be no compulsion on churches to do so. We also support the extension to accredited humanist celebrants of the authority to solemnise marriages, which, unlike the practice in Scotland, they cannot currently do.

Every person has their own particular understanding of marriage. Indeed, those views may be held in common with others. Often, those views will reflect firmly held and sincere religious beliefs. However, the state also has a duty to treat all its citizens equally and fairly. That is not the case at present with marriage, with same-sex couples not having the ability to have their stable and loving relationship recognised by the state. I do not believe that the state recognising same-sex marriage detracts from the belief system or diminishes the Christian institution of marriage or that of other faiths. It is entirely possible to hold a set of values that govern one's personal life while recognising that, in a liberal society, it is not appropriate to impose those views and values on other people and other couples.

As elected representatives, we all have a duty to ensure that the state does not discriminate. It may be useful to draw a more direct parallel between same-sex marriage and divorce. Many people have sincere personal opinions about the rights and wrongs of divorce; indeed, many churches do not support divorce and will not facilitate second marriages. That is their right and their affair, even though I may disagree with it. However, few people today would argue against the state having a duty to provide civil divorce to any person or couple who wishes to dissolve a marriage.

Some ask whether the rights of churches in this regard can be adequately protected under law. I sincerely believe that they can. Some have also raised the prospect of the European Court of Human Rights imposing same-sex marriages on churches. That has been contradicted by other legal opinion. Article 9 of the convention, which has been upheld on many occasions, is unambiguous in protecting the right to freedom of religion. That gives churches really strong protection in respect of the ability to determine practices within their premises in line with their own teaching.

I believe that this is an issue of equality and of freedom of religion, and, if we are a progressive society, we must respect diversity and provide equality and protection for all.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. It is very much to be welcomed that we are discussing the issue. This is the first private Member's motion that has come forward on issues relating to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community, and it is to be welcomed.

Being gay is legal and has been since 1982, when Jeff Dudgeon took a case to the European Court of Human Rights. I read about some of his experiences at that time, which seem like a world away. For example, members of the gay community were pulled in by the police for questioning about their activities. That was ludicrous, and, in this day and age, opposition to gay marriage, which does not affect any churches, is also ludicrous. Before I go on to my next point, I want to say that our responsibility as Members of the Assembly is to legislate not just for our particular part of the community but for everybody, regardless of their sexual orientation. Of course churches will have their own definition of marriage, which they are entitled to. However, if legislation came forward to facilitate marriage equality, it would not affect how each individual church defined marriage. That goes back to what Anna Lo said about divorce, which is facilitated in society even though the churches may not agree with it. We as legislators have to recognise that we represent everybody, and everybody's needs must be facilitated.

There is a much more serious issue here as well. What we say in the House today will go out on radio and television this evening. People sitting around their dinner table will watch this and see what the views of senior politicians are. People, particularly the young, will be informed by the opinions of politicians. As Bronwyn McGahan said, there is a lot of prejudice and discrimination on this issue in our community. We need to send out a clear message that people from the LGBT community are equal and are entitled to the same rights as everybody else. Prejudicial views lead to discrimination, and that discrimination has an ongoing devastating impact on young men and women who are gay. It leads to bullying, harassment and suicide. We have had debates about suicide in the Assembly, and all parties were agreed that we needed to do everything we can to ensure that the likelihood of that is reduced. Addressing this issue is one way we can affect the prevalence of suicide in our society. That is why we need to support the motion.

The fact that the House will not split down traditional, defined lines is to be welcomed. There is a variety of views across the Benches, and I hope that will continue to permeate our respective communities. Nobody should sit on the fence when voting on the motion. The party opposite has submitted a petition of concern, but there is an opportunity today for Members to secure a majority vote for equality and for standing up for the rights of gay people in our community. We need to grasp that opportunity and show political courage. We cannot always look over our shoulder and think, "My voters might not like this or that"; we need to do the right thing. There is a big opportunity here to send out a message that gay people in our community have a right to equality and to have their needs facilitated and defended. The majority of Members in the House need to vote for the motion and send out a clear message that this will no longer be a taboo subject in this part of Ireland. People in the rest of Ireland are clearly going to move on, as are people in Britain, and we cannot be left behind. As I said at the start of my speech —

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

Bring your remarks to a close, please.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

— being gay has been legal since 1982. As with gender and race, when the breach is made —

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

Time is up.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

— it is just a matter of time before other rights come out of that. I urge Members to support the motion.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I may be one of the few Members from the unionist Benches to speak in favour of the motion. I do so aware that many in my community are deeply uneasy about it, and I respect their position. However, I also know that there are Members of the House, some of whom are not present, who are unable to speak out on the motion despite their personal position and despite the situation that members of their family find themselves in. I find that really disappointing, and I am surprised that the DUP has felt the need to present a petition of concern on a matter that should really be a free vote. However, somebody needs to speak out. Somebody needs to speak for those who are carried away on urgent constituency business. All of us should be given the opportunity to speak freely.

I want to live in an open, tolerant and pluralist society that celebrates diversity, accommodates difference and protects individuals who happen to be different.

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

The Member, obviously, listened carefully to his party leader the other week when he talked about a unionist party that is progressive and for all. So, I commend the Member on speaking out. Does he not believe that a major feature in the rise in young suicides over the years has sometimes been prejudices around sexual identity?

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for her intervention. I will, if she does not mind, deal with that point a little later.

You do not have to be black to oppose racism or female to speak out against domestic violence, and I do not have to be gay to reject prejudice, misinformation and bullying. These are issues that we should all stand against. Nor do I limit my support to specific minorities. Churches, practising Christians and other religious faiths also have rights. The Church, whatever denomination it may be, is an important institution in society. Churches must have the right to determine what they permit within their bodies. That is the core of religious freedom. They do not have the sole right to determine what is permissible outside their bodies. The motion makes it clear that churches would have legal protection to ensure that they will not be compelled to engage in activity that they consider incompatible with their religious beliefs. Like Ms Lo, I believe that that right is fully protected under article 9 and, despite the scaremongering of some earlier speakers.

The central tenet of those opposed to the motion is that marriage is a religious institution and is, therefore, sacrosanct. It may come as a shock to some here to know that in the past Presbyterian marriages were not recognised, and the offspring of such unions were considered illegitimate. At other times, neither a minister nor a church was required; the only essentials were a declaration in front of witnesses and the absence of compulsion. Many marriages were not even registered unless property was involved. The point is that marriage can change to accommodate society.

There is something of a crisis in marriage. In the swinging 60s, only one person in 50 lived together. Marriage was the only option, and divorce was unheard of. Today, fewer than half the population are married. Almost one in five over the age of 50 is divorced, and 30% of children are born to parents who cohabit. What is, perhaps, most surprising about those figures is that the most ardent opponents of the motion are strangely silent about them. Where is the motion condemning people who live in sin, or cohabiting as we now call it? One in six of the population. If this is an issue about marriage, then there are other issues you have to tackle.

We are talking about a relatively small number. In 2010, there were 8,200 marriages in Northern Ireland and just 116 civil partnerships. Why is the focus on those small numbers?

Marriage is not an exclusively Christian concept. It is practised in many ways in many parts of the world. At different times in our history it has been looked at in different ways. The important thing to understand about the word "marriage" is that it is just a word. It is the meanings and actions behind the word and the associated values that are important. I have to say to society in general that actions speak louder than words. All the fine words here mean nothing; it is what people do.

An important thing in a way forward and a shared future is to accept that we are all different, yet we depend on each other.

Allowing one group to use a word does not diminish its use by another, and the context will be understood by all. Society accepting equal marriage does not mean that everyone has to agree with the practice. Many Christians and followers of other religions already do not agree with every single marriage that takes place. That is their choice, but our job is to provide some form of society in which we can all work together.

The Assembly has an opportunity: by passing the motion, we will send out a powerful message that we can tackle hard subjects and take tough decisions, and, contrary to popular opinion, it will make a positive contribution to our society. I stand alone, if necessary, for all of the individuals in our society, and I urge people to remember that every single one of them is somebody's child.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim míle buíochas leat as ucht an deis cainte a fháil ar an ábhar tábhachtach seo. Tá an rún seo thar a bheith tábhachtach. Chan amháin sin, sílim go bhfuil sé curtha le chéile ar bhonn cothromais, agus tugann sé aitheantas do chearta gach aon duine atá i gceist anseo: do lucht creidimh agus dóibh sin atá ag iarraidh a gceart chomh maith. Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in this important debate. I praise those who brought this extremely well constructed, balanced and fair motion to the House. I think that it seeks to uphold the rights of all concerned.

This is a debate about equal rights. It is about freedom from discrimination and stigmatisation. It is about legal protections and responsibilities, and the rights, obligations and benefits afforded by the legal institution of marriage. It is also about real people: sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts. It is about parents who want to see their children in loving, secure, stable and permanent relationships that are protected by the legal institution of marriage and who do not want to see their children marginalised, stigmatised or wondering what the future may hold for them. Their love for each other and their commitment to their relationship should be afforded the very same protections and benefits that the rest of us derive from marriage and, in this case, civil marriage.

The LGBT community is not asking for more; it is simply asking for the same. Extending rights to those who are denied them should not be seen as a threat to those who already have those rights, or to their faith, belief or right to hold a different view. The motion makes a clear distinction between the civil and religious aspects of the issue. It states:

"that all couples, including those of the same sex, should have the right to marry in the eyes of the state".

It also states that religious institutions ought to continue to have the right to "define, observe and practise marriage" within the bounds of their institutions. There is no desire, therefore, for any religious denomination or celebrant to be compelled to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies against their beliefs or faith. I strongly believe that that should be the case, as it is in this motion. The equal marriage campaign in Northern Ireland is also committed to protecting the rights of those religious denominations and celebrants who do not wish to conduct same-sex weddings. The motion recognises that the state does not have any role in dictating to religious groups which ceremonies they can and cannot conduct.

Articles 2, 16 and 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights underpin the right of all to marry and to have freedom of thought and religion. Article 18 upholds religious freedoms. I believe that the motion reflects those views. As Mr McCrea pointed out, equal marriage is an evolution of the principles set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. Those are that all human rights are indivisible and interdependent and must be secured and protected, without discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, gender, class, ability, sexual orientation or, indeed, any other status. Therefore, I strongly believe that the motion upholds the right of all to marry, and protects —

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

The Member should bring his remarks to a close.

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

— the autonomy and rights of religious and faith groups. For that reason, I support the motion and commend it to the House.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I speak in the debate not as a minister in the Executive nor on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party. Rather, I speak as a Member of the House to express my personal views on what I regard to be an important issue of conscience. Members will know that my party believes that issues of this nature should be subject to individual conscience and not party dictates. As someone with a clear personal faith, yet tolerant of the right of others to hold and express their views, I want to set out my personal position on the subject of same-sex marriage.

I do not and cannot support the principle of same-sex marriage. I am opposed to it not just on the basis of the teachings of my church, the Presbyterian Church — I should add that, outside the House, I have responsibilities as clerk of session and Sunday school superintendent at Bessbrook Presbyterian Church — but also, most importantly, on the basis of the teaching of holy scripture. I do not see it as an issue of equality, because, in my view, civil partnerships provide equality of treatment for those in same-sex relationships.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Despite that fact of existing and fair and equal treatment, we find ourselves debating, I feel unnecessarily, this issue today. Many people at home who are watching the debate, following it or reading about it in tomorrow's newspapers will ask one question — Why? At a time of economic difficulty and job losses, when people are worried about bills, their job security, fuel prices as we approach winter and their shopping budgets, why are we setting aside time to debate same-sex marriage? The answer is, rather depressingly, because of Scotland. It seems that we are only debating the issue because the Scots consider it to be an issue.

We are not only discussing this issue, we are doing so with what I believe is a very confused motion. Like the other proposals in Great Britain, it is confused, because it calls for the right of same-sex couples to marry at the same time as calling for the right of religious institutions not to marry them. The net result could be a law that provides people with a right that they cannot exercise. It is sometimes said that you do not know your rights when you cannot enforce them. This motion could provide for people to acquire rights that they know about but cannot enforce. Therefore, it is a motion that is as pointless as it is a worthless course on which to embark. When it comes to pension provision, child maintenance, inheritance, life assurance and immigration rights, civil partners are not disadvantaged. Civil partnerships offer the same legal treatment as marriage and, therefore, there is simply no need to further change the law and no need for a motion that calls for the same legal entitlements. I invite the proposer of the motion, who wants to respond to my remarks, to list the legal entitlements to which he refers that are to be denied to civil partners.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving me the opportunity to respond. Civil partnerships are not equal in law, and nor do they provide religious freedom. They are not equal in law in that a couple in a civil partnership in Northern Ireland does not have the right to adopt children as opposed to the rights of civil partners in England, Scotland and Wales. There is no evidence to suggest that it would be detrimental if they had that right. Equally, it does not provide couples, even if they are Christian, with religious equality because they are not even allowed to play religious music or have any adornment of religious overtone in a civil partnership whereas I, as someone who does not attend church, can have a religious wedding if I so choose.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the extent that the Member took the opportunity offered. However, he has not convinced me with his argument. The whole point of devolution is to permit regional variations in law and in practice from other parts of the United Kingdom. Not only are we not obligated to follow blindly but we would be neglecting our role by doing so. In referring to the "eyes of the state", the motion fails to acknowledge that, under devolution, those eyes are different in Scotland to those in England and Wales, and different again to those in Northern Ireland.

We are debating an issue today that even the Scots do not plan to introduce until after 2015. This debate sends out a message to people at home that we are not a serious Assembly because, once again, we are doing nothing other than debating somebody else's idea. A serious Assembly should concentrate its efforts on finding Northern Ireland solutions to Northern Ireland problems with health, education and, most importantly, with the economy. I do not support the motion, and I urge others, irrespective of their views on same-sex marriage, to follow suit and reject it.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I also reject the motion. This is not an issue of equality; it is an issue of the perversion of marriage. Historically, for a very good reason, marriage has long been defined as the union of one man and one woman. Any society should be slow to tinker with or alter a bedrock of society that has served it so well, none more so than respect for marriage. Some have said — indeed, I heard Mr McKay say so — that as legislators, we have to represent everyone. Without apology, I am here today to represent in this debate those who say that they stand by the traditional values, standards and definition of marriage. I do not and will not represent a contrary cause in the House.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

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

Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Later, perhaps.

There is a question as to whether any legislator should properly have regard to societal and moral norms. Is that outside the ambit that we should be considering? I am quite clear that it is something that we should most assuredly be considering, because the society that loses hold of its norms and its morals is a society that just keeps spiralling downwards. Reference has already been made to some of the social consequences of a society losing sight of its moral attachments.

Some say it is a human rights issue. It is not a human rights issue. It has long been established in human rights jurisprudence that there is no right to same-sex marriage under the European Convention on Human Rights in any state that has our definition of marriage. However, it would become a human rights issue if we were so foolish as to change the definition of marriage, because those who qualify outside the traditional definition of marriage would then be able to claim discrimination and say that they were being discriminated against by religious institutions. It would quickly become a human rights issue, and the bulwark that Ms Lo described article 9 of the convention as being would very soon melt away. That is because, in those circumstances, it would be only a competing interest in a balancing exercise to be conducted by the court. So, it would not be the bulwark.

Just as civil partnership was the slippery slope to this proposition of marriage, let us remember that the proponents of civil partnership told us all that they were not interested in moving to full marriage. Those who were not deceived by that can see exactly where the intent was. Now, of course, the next step is into so-called gay adoption, and on and on it goes. Marriage is one of the institutions that holds society together, and I say to this House that we should be very slow indeed to loosen the grip of that binding moral.

I will give way to Mr McDevitt.

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

I thank Mr Allister for giving way. I take him back to his earlier assertion that he has come here to defend "the traditional values" of marriage — not the conditions or the context of marriage, but the values. I presume that those are values such as love, interdependence and solidarity. Can Mr Allister tell this House how those values are not present in a same-sex relationship? How are those values absent, specifically, from a same-sex relationship?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Member mentioned some of those values, such as love and companionship. He did not mention providing a context for the rearing of children. Marriage, of course, was instituted for that very purpose. That is where there is no equality between the man and the woman who want to get married to raise a family and the man and the man who want to get married for whatever reason. There is no equality whatever between those two situations, and nor can there be.

The logic of the Member's position, if we are heading down the road of saying that we can tinker with or change the basic concept of —

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member has the Floor.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

If we change the basic concept of marriage from being the union between one man and one woman, as I put it to the Member, we are headed down the road where there is no justifiable reason, in your logic and in that of those who proposed the motion, to resist polygamy.

If a man says, "I am in love with a man", you say, therefore, that he must be entitled to marry. If a man says, "I am in love with two women", according to your equality charter, it is his right to say that he must be entitled to marry. Of course, this House would recoil from that. Why? That is because, in all this, there is quite properly, even yet, a recognition that there is a moral standard that has to be upheld —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member's time is almost gone.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The same moral standard prohibits loosening at all the grip on the fact that marriage is between one man and one woman —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member's time is gone.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— and there it should stay.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am very happy to respond to the debate. I listened with very great care and interest to the points that were made in the debate, which, I have to say, has been fairly measured. However, I believe that, for two reasons and as the Member for Newry and Armagh indicated, it is a debate that many people outside this Building will find very odd at this particular time. He gave the first reason, which is that there are many other important issues that this Assembly could be debating in the middle of an economic recession that is affecting almost every household. Secondly, there is no widespread demand — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Minister has the Floor.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

There is no widespread demand across society for the kinds of changes that the motion asks for.

At the outset, I will make clear my position as Minister of Finance and Personnel. I am opposed to gay marriage. I have no intention of bringing forward any legislation to this House to facilitate gay marriage. I believe that, in doing that, I am reflecting the general view in society in Northern Ireland.

A number of issues have been raised here today. The first is that people think that, once they raise the issue of rights, they have the trump card. When you talk about rights, nobody can possibly deny you whatever it is that you have asked for. However, the fact of the matter is that rights are not always compatible. One set of rights may not be compatible with another person's set of rights. The proposer of the motion spoke about the right to get married, the right to private family life, and so on. Equally, of course, Mr Beggs, Mr Kennedy, Miss McIlveen and Mr Allister talked about people's rights to religious freedom and religious beliefs. In this case, the two are not compatible.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I will give way in a wee minute, but let me develop this point.

I have to say that there has been some shallow thinking in this debate. One of the shallowest comments was made by the Committee Chairman, Mr Daithí McKay. He said that we have to legislate for everybody and that everybody's needs must be facilitated. I have to say to the House that there are occasions when you cannot facilitate everybody's needs. There are occasions when, if you recognise and make a decision that, on balance, you want to go down one road, it means that you cannot facilitate people who want to go in a totally different direction. When it comes to the rights of religious freedom, as opposed to the kinds of things that the proposer of the motion talked about, there is a parting of the ways. It is shallow to think that you can facilitate that.

I do not want to criticise someone who was making her first speech, but to try to indicate that the sincere holding of these beliefs will somehow or other encourage people to attack those who have decided on a different lifestyle is just absolute nonsense. No one in this debate — no matter what side of the debate they have come from and regardless of how wrong they may think a certain lifestyle is or their view on that lifestyle — has indicated that that is a cause for physically attacking the people concerned. That is the first thing.

I will give way now.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

The Minister made the point that there is a right to religious freedom. Equally, he said that I talked about the right of those in same-sex relationships to marry. He said that those are conflicting rights. Given that there is the right to divorce but the religious freedom of Churches does not allow divorce, can he tell me how these two rights — the potential right of same-sex couples to marry and the right to religious freedoms — would come into conflict?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I will. In fact, the Member has led me on to the next point that I want to make. When we come to look at the kinds of issues that he has raised today, a conflict will — it is not that it could or might; it will — arise that will impact on people's religious freedom.

Let me give you one example. In fact, Mr McCrea raised this point when he said that it is one thing to say that the law should not impinge on what people believe and how they conduct affairs in their Churches but it is another to say that we should not consider the effects that it has outside that. As Mr Allister pointed out, once we change the definition of marriage, we change the context in which a whole range of rights, responsibilities and obligations is made.

Let me give some examples. We will look at it first for individuals and secondly for Churches. If you change the definition of marriage in law, when it comes to teaching about marriage in school, the definition that has to be abided by, and the type of marriage that has to be taught, will be as defined in law. What happens if a teacher decides that it is against his or her moral and religious beliefs to —

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

Will the Minister give way?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Let me finish the point. What if he or she decides that it is against their religious and moral beliefs to teach that definition of marriage? Immediately, that teacher will be brought into conflict with the education authorities and with those who decide to challenge him or her. The same will happen with schools.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Will the Minister give way?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Let me finish the point, first. Someone else has asked me to give way, which I will do in a moment or two.

The same will happen with churches that refuse to accept that definition of marriage. Will their youth groups get excluded from council facilities because they will not abide by the new legal definition of marriage and are therefore seen as being discriminatory? Once you move the goalposts, the idea that somehow or other this will not impinge on people's rights is wrong. I will give way, and then I want to develop the point a bit further.

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

We are used to the Minister's eccentric views on climate change, but the past few minutes have taken us into a whole new realm. Does he not accept the basic premise that in this jurisdiction there is a separation between the churches and the state? I take it that that separation is something that the entire House feels very strongly about?

Secondly, does he not accept that the logic that he is trying to project for what might or might not happen in a classroom is basically flawed? Is he seriously suggesting to me that Catholic schools today are teaching kids about divorce? Is he really? Is he saying that Catholic teachers who do not deal with the issue of divorce in the classroom because it is against Catholic teaching should be arraigned?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Interventions from Members should not be statements.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Of course, the Member loves the sound of his own voice and has tried to get in on quite a number of occasions. He talks about the separation between church and state, but faith groups are already excluded from making applications for, for example, government funding, because of what they believe and the stance that they take. That is the point that I am making: once we change the definition, we impact upon those various groups.

I have heard all of the talk about protections being brought into the law. I can remember sitting through debates in the House of Commons about the then Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, where it was said that people would still be permitted to preach whatever they wanted to preach according to their beliefs. Yet, that law has been used against street preachers and everything else, despite the fact that in the House of Commons it was explicitly said that people would be protected. Hoteliers and bed-and-breakfast owners have been brought before the courts despite the fact that protections were promised.

I listened to what Ms Lo said on the issue. She said she sincerely believed that the rights of churches could be protected. That is not a very good guarantee. If we were to legislate for this, the sincere belief of the Member for South Belfast would not be much of a safeguard for those people who hold a different view.

The first issue is that of rights. Rights are not always compatible, and we have to take a balanced view as to which rights are going to be pursued and which rights should be given protection.

Let me come to the second issue raised: equality. It was said that, somehow or other, this is about getting equality between the people who believe in same-sex marriage and those who believe in heterosexual marriage. I do not agree with the Civil Partnership Act 2004. As Mr Allister pointed out, that was the toe in the door and the means for pushing the boundaries even further in a direction that I, and the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, do not wish them to be pushed as far as changes in society are concerned.

Whether you accept it or believe that it was a correct piece of legislation or not, it encapsulates a range of protections for people who believe that they want to have same-sex relationships. There has been a lot of talk about this in the debate.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Minister give way?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, I will give way.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I am interested in this point. Is the Minister saying that he is anti-homosexuality or pro-marriage? I really want to find out about this. This is not about legislation and scare tactics. You have said that all of these human rights, including article 9, are rubbish. What is your personal position on marriage, and what is your personal position on homosexuality?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Since I am not an expert on human rights law, maybe I am not the best person to ask. Let us look at what the experts on human rights law say. It is not often that I quote the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, but I will tell you what it says about the equality issue. This is not Sammy Wilson's view as an amateur; this is the view of those who steep themselves in human rights legislation. It says:

"The restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples does not violate the international standards and this is clear from both the International treaties and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Committee."

That is the answer to the Member's question. I do not think — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Minister has the Floor.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I do not think that, even in his arrogance, the Member would dare to contradict the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission on an interpretation about whether or not there is equality.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Minister give way?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

No. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I will not give way, because I do not want him to make a fool of himself. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Members should not debate across the Chamber.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I do not him to make a fool of himself again. He asked for a view: I have given him the most definitive view on the issue. That should be enough for him. It is not an equality issue. Even those who have been set up in Northern Ireland to make judgements on equality have given the view that the legislation that is currently in place is sufficient and there is no need to legislate for same-sex marriages. In conclusion — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I can think of many more priorities for changes in the law that fall under my Department than the issue that the Member has brought forward. For the reasons that I have given the House —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Minister's time is gone.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

— I hope that Members will vote against the motion.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Sinn Féin, along with the Green Party, tabled the motion calling for the provision of legislation to ensure marriage equality for the LGBT community. I welcome the tone of the debate, and I welcome the contributions from all the parties, although I have some concerns about some of the contributions, which I will outline in a few minutes.

First, every citizen should enjoy the same rights and entitlements under state law, and that includes those relating to marriage. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

This is an equality issue. Those who pretend that it is not should read the equality laws. Sexual orientation is one of the nine grounds listed in section 75. Nobody in our society is allowed to be discriminated against. The Assembly has enormous responsibility, and it needs to show political leadership.

The LGBT community is a proud one, but it is also hurting and suffering. Although there have been enormous advances in how our society includes our LGBT communities, they are still treated as second-class citizens throughout Ireland, north, south, east and west. Some people across the way can pretend that civil partnership is the same as marriage; it is not. Steven Agnew answered those who tried to use that as a fig leaf. Our LGBT communities are still subjected to a campaign of hate and homophobic behaviour, and every one of us in the House, as political leaders, needs to show leadership. To say that our words do not hurt young and old is an absolute pretence. Taking responsibility for our words is what we have to do.

On Saturday, I, along with my colleagues Megan Fearon, Mickey Brady, Jennifer McCann, Conor Murphy and our councillors and activists, walked proudly behind the Sinn Féin banner to support Pride. It was the first Pride parade ever in Newry. It was a beautiful day, the sun was shining, the floats were very colourful and there was great music playing. Thousands of people — I note that the Minister of Finance is not listening, so I will say it again — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, Members.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Thousands of people were there on the streets. The Minister is still muttering away, but thousands of people were out supporting the rights of people — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

— their sons, their daughters — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member has the Floor.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

— their brothers, their sisters, their aunties and their uncles. So, let us not pretend that this is not a serious issue in our society.

I know that he was not speaking as Minister, but a Minister of our Executive claimed that we are not a serious Assembly because we are discussing this issue. I will tell you this: I take my role in this Assembly extremely seriously — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

This is one of the most important issues — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

— and we should be discussing it. I do not want anyone to be discriminated against, and I will not play my part in facilitating people to sit on the fence —

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Will the Member give way?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I will give way.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. It is interesting that the Member referred to her participation and that of her party in the Gay Pride parade in Newry on Saturday. It seemed to strike a different chord when it approached the right of others to assemble peacefully to celebrate the Ulster covenant in Belfast. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

First of all, I will not allow the Member to hide behind other issues. Let us have a debate — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Let us have a debate on those other issues, and I will be the first to do it, but — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us not have a debate across the Chamber.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

— today is about the rights of our LGBT communities. You can hide and try to divert the debate, but it will not work with me.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

No, I want to develop my point. I have already given way.

That day will be remembered by many people as a day when Newry came of age. Young and old were there; that is the important issue. Some Members opposite seem to think that this issue just affects our LGBT community, but it affects our grandmothers and grandfathers, our mothers and our fathers, our brothers and our sisters and our aunties and our uncles. Do you know where the leadership is coming from? Our young people. I saw them in Newry, and they had done very profound and beautiful banners that said, "I love my gay uncle" and "Cool to have a gay auntie". Fair play to them. They are not taking the 1866 laws that were quoted at us. We could also find laws to quote on why women should not vote. Ms McIlveen told us to look forward. I am looking forward, and I ask her to join the rest of us in looking forward. The 1866 laws are obviously wrong; get rid of them. The best way to get rid of them is by legislating so that people are not discriminated against.

There is a challenge here for our Assembly. We have an opportunity to send out an unambiguous, clear message to the LGBT community, their families and society to say, "We respect you and your rights, and we are going to work alongside all sections of civic society to ensure that you as citizens, your children and your families are entitled to live free from harassment and from hate crime". Bronwyn McGahan mentioned a young man in her community, and, if Sammy Wilson is under the illusion that words cannot create dangerous situations, he should study that case. Words can create dangerous situations for people. It is called incitement to hatred, and we all know about that. Our gay and straight communities — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

The gentlemen across the way should just listen. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member must be heard.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Our gay and straight communities need to stand together against the scourges of homophobic behaviour and outdated thinking.

I understand that people may have issues of conscience, but we are politicians, not church leaders. The Church legislates for the Church. It is worrying that a Minister in the Executive does not know the difference between the Church and the state. Two Ministers have said that they are opposed to equal marriage. They need to clarify their position. The question that the House asks them is this: in light of our equality duties, are they saying —

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Will the Member give way?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

No. I will not. I have already given way to you. You had your chance. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

At the end of the day, the Ministers are in the Executive, equality is part of the Executive, and people from the LGBT community deserve equality. I welcome —

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I will. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. She referred to how the words of politicians can stir up hatred. Recently, a DUP representative in Mid Ulster said that homosexuality should be made illegal again. Does she agree that that will only stir up hatred and put a lot of unnecessary pressure on the LGB community in that area?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

First, I agree with the Member. I think that we will all take that comment with a pinch of salt. What we need to do is legislate to protect rights. The comments referred to by my colleague Daithí, which were made by a member of the party on the Benches opposite, are not acceptable. Of course, homosexuality should never have been illegal in the first place.

Leadership is not sitting on the fence. It is not quoting literally or selectively from the Bible to justify actions. It is not abstaining in votes on a council so that motions are lost. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Leadership is about standing up and being counted. It is about legislating for equality. We have a chance now to do something, and it is important that we do it.

I welcome the fact that councils throughout Ireland have passed motions, and, today, I ask that all parties support our joint motion. I call on those on the unionist Benches who have set their heart against it, even at this stage, to support the motion. There is no partial equality; there is no selective equality. I welcome the leadership shown by Mr Basil McCrea here today.

The debate stood suspended.

Oral Answers to Questions

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Questions 4 and 5 have been withdrawn and require written answers.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

1. asked the Minister of the Environment following the release of the latest road safety promotional video, what other new initiatives his Department is progressing to improve road safety. (AQO 2530/11-15)

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

I thank the Member for his question. The intention is that the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill will be before the Assembly before Christmas. That will start the legislative process to put in place reduced alcohol limits for novice and other drivers and deploy proposals in respect of driver training. I am pleased to say that the proposals got very strong endorsement from a wide range of Executive Ministers during the first week of July. Beyond that, it is my ambition that, in the 2013-14 session, legislation that will recognise penalty points for five categories on the island of Ireland will also be tabled. All that legislation should be passed in good time for the end of the mandate.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I am sure that everybody shares our view and sends their condolences to the family of the young child who was killed last week. Given that that happened, what more can be done? What discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Regional Development and engineering firms to see what new engineering practices can be brought forward to enhance road safety?

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

I also convey my sympathy to all the families who lost a loved one. This time last week, three people died in the course of 24 hours. Nothing can recover the loss of life and the pain that arises from that. We need to recognise that, so far this year, there have been 31 deaths on our roads, compared to 41 deaths at this time last year. I would not draw any conclusions from that about what the figures will be for the end of the year, given that we are entering the winter months. However, it suggests that, through a range of measures, we are bearing down on the issue of road deaths and serious injuries, be that through the advertising campaign, the new laws that I have just outlined, better driver training or what I had this morning, which was a meeting with Assistant Chief Constable Alistair Finlay about a cross-departmental, cross-agency initiative to build a real-life learning experience here in Belfast, where people up to the age of 25 would learn safety across all of the sectors, not just roads. If that includes having conversations with the Minister with responsibility for roads with regard to road design and engineering, that is what I am doing. Every six months, I have a ministerial meeting with Minister Kennedy and Minister Ford, where we look at cross-departmental issues, including speed limits and safety measures on our roads, taking into account areas around schools, in respect of which Mr McDevitt may introduce a private Member's Bill in the near future. By working with all the relevant Departments, including Roads Service engineers, we can make roads safer and improve driving.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The Department regularly puts promotional videos to air on commercial television, for which, obviously, there is a cost and, hopefully, a significant benefit. If he were to consider, in his own Department or an Executive colleague's Department, an advertising programme in respect of which the legal advice was that it might contravene the Communications Act 2003, would he give serious consideration to not proceeding with that video campaign?

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

I thank the Member for his question. In a review of campaign advertising across government last autumn, the only campaign advertising budget that was ring-fenced was that for road traffic campaigns in all the media outlets. The Executive recognised that, although the advertisements can, on occasion, be distressing — I do not want to diminish that — they are part of the narrative that is leading to fewer injuries and deaths. The Member's point that there may be a conflict with the Communications Act has not been brought to my attention previously, but I will certainly look at it. Regardless of whether it is in respect of the cost of the campaigns, which will be retendered in the near future, or their quality and character, my Department and I keep a close watch on all the issues. That is why I am a bit surprised that I have not heard previously that there may be an issue with the London legislation.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I certainly welcome all the Department's initiatives on improving our road safety. Does the Minister intend to go ahead with the new proposal that he is thinking of to restrict young drivers in their first six months of being qualified so that they cannot carry other young passengers? How will he enforce that?

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

I thank the Member for her question. Not only do I intend to go forward with that proposal but the Executive intend to go forward with it. In the first week of July, I put proposals to the Executive, in principle, on graduated penalties and changes to the driver training regime that received virtually unanimous approval and a strong endorsement. One of the proposals, which is borrowed from international best practice, will see in this part of Ireland the most radical driver training regime certainly in these islands if not beyond. It will place restrictions on newly qualified drivers about whom they may carry for six months after their qualification. We will work that proposal through closely with, among others, driver trainers to establish how it should be shaped.

We are shaping the proposal in that way because 44% of deaths in the past four or five years have involved young drivers, as have 35% of serious injuries. Too often, that is because young drivers are under peer pressure. They are driving their peers or are being encouraged to drive more quickly. The evidence is that, if the driving experience is controlled and drivers are restricted in whom they may carry — with some exceptions, as there will be legitimate reasons why people may want to carry family, friends or others — opportunities are created to reduce the risks in the early days after someone has qualified.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the Minister's reference to a reduction in deaths on the roads. However, I am sure that he will agree that one death on the roads of Northern Ireland is one death too many. What are the current trends in road safety in Northern Ireland? How do the figures or stats compare with other jurisdictions?

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

As I said, there have been 31 tragic road traffic deaths this year to date. There were close to 60 over the course of last year. Although that was a slight increase on the previous year, the pattern is very much downward. The proof of that is that, in 2003, the ratio for deaths in the North, compared with other parts of these islands, demonstrated that we had the worst record. Since 2011, however, because of a family of interventions to improve road safety and road performance, we are now below the average per capita in the Republic and close to the average per capita in Britain. That indicates that all the interventions, including those that I spoke about and those heretofore, are having a material impact on this critical issue.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

2. asked the Minister of the Environment what plans he has to increase the level of emergency payments made to people affected by flooding. (AQO 2531/11-15)

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

I thank the Member for his question. I confirm that the Department has, over the past number of months, been preparing a business case that will go to DFP. Its core proposal is that the payment under the existing emergency scheme would be increased from £1,000 to £1,500 per household and that the scheme would extend to voluntary groups, charities and businesses. It is a good scheme, it has worked well, and it has been borrowed in other parts of these islands. However, the scheme could be broadened to help people in critical incidents.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for that very welcome statement. I also personally thank him for his recent intervention in an issue affecting one of my constituents, an 80-year-old woman in East Belfast. The Minister intervened while he was on holiday.

Given the good news today, can I ask whether, until we have the legislation in place, the Minister's Department will continue to show the same sort of flexibility and common sense that he has shown over the past couple of months?

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

I thank the Member for his acknowledgement that the Department tried to intervene in an acute incident to assist an elderly person. That happened because I sought legal advice, which I interrogated, and, in my view, the interpretation of the policy in that particular circumstance was that the spirit and substance of the scheme captured that type of incident. In that circumstance, water damage arose from a pre-existing position that may not have been known to the occupant, or the scale of the damage may not reasonably have been known to the occupant.

I will certainly press DFP, be it on that example or others, to show proper flexibility in the interpretation of the scheme to defeat the mischief, which is that somebody who quite patently should be covered by the scheme might be disqualified from it under a strict interpretation of it. So, you have my reassurance on that. On the other hand, I encourage DFP to show that flexibility, and I have examples of when it has been flexible and examples of when it has not. Given the scale of our weather problems, I think that we should interpret the spirit and substance of the scheme flexibly to defeat the mischief of bad weather.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Minister give an assurance that rural and urban dwellers will be treated equally in the compensation proposals? He will be aware that, over the past year, his colleague in the Department for Regional Development has made numerous bids in monitoring rounds for flood prevention and alleviation projects. Does the Minister believe that, if such proposals were supported around the Executive table, not only would it be the morally right thing to do but it would make economic sense?

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

I reassure the Member that, certainly when it comes to the scheme's operation, no evidence has been brought to my attention by any of the councils that manage it of any difference between the treatment of rural dwellers and urban dwellers. Indeed, the vast majority of claims are accepted, and payments are made very quickly. I think that the scheme has worked very well.

I also confirm that, following the severe weather on the last Wednesday in June, the Executive are conducting a review of flood issues and the emergency response to see where policy, practice and, indeed, resources might be upgraded in an effort to mitigate the risks. Other Ministers will comment on that in due course. I acknowledge, though, that the emergency response network in the North that exists through the councils, which have a role in co-ordinating the emergency services, worked very well in many places during the acute weather that we had last June, especially in Belfast. However, we need to have certainty in law about where the lead co-ordination responsibility should reside. In my view, given the good practice that is now deployed in councils and council clusters, councils should have the legal responsibility to lead the co-ordination. They should not do all the work in the implementation of the emergency response but should take the lead in co-ordinating the response, just as Belfast City Council did in the very acute weather conditions, substantially to the benefit of the citizens of the borough.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagraí go dtí seo. Following recent flooding at Shane's Road, Killyleagh, can the Minister indicate whether emergency payments will be extended to include those whose property was affected?

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

I will certainly look at the situation in Killyleagh. The council has not yet raised it with me. The scheme has been extended, even in recent days and weeks, to capture further flooding events, wherever they might be. So, the scheme has been activated for the most recent events in the past week. No issue has been raised with me about the victims in Killyleagh. However, rest assured that, if, as with so many instances around the North — so far, £1·5 million has been deployed to deal with the June flood incident alone — the evidence is that, subject to the experience of the East Belfast resident, the scheme captures virtually all that it should, the issue will be whether we can capture more.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

3. asked the Minister of the Environment for his assessment of Arc21. (AQO 2532/11-15)

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

I thank the Member for his question. As Members know, there is an ongoing waste procurement strategy for Northern Ireland. The outworking of that sees three groups of councils, through procurement groups — the Southern Waste Management Partnership (SWaMP), the North West Region Waste Management Group (NWRWMG) and Arc21 — taking forward the procurement of waste need in future. I have to be careful about what I say in this regard because we are at a critical phase of the management of those procurement strategies. I have made it clear, in the Department, to the three groups of councils and to the procurement managers, that I want to create certainty and to do so quickly over how the procurement strategy will be deployed over the next period. Consequently, I said clearly to all three that now is the time and soon is the time for certainty around the deliverability and affordability of each of or all the schemes, given the scale of commitments that councils may be asked to enter into and the financial consequences that flow from that. That is as true for Arc21 as it is for the others.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Given the number of organisations now involved in waste management, does he consider that the time is now approaching for the challenges to be faced collectively through the delivery of a new waste infrastructure facility by one group?

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

I confirm that I said to the waste management board, the Department and the three procurement groups that we should, as the Member said, move towards having a single waste authority. However, historically, we came to the situation in which we had three waste authorities. It is my view that, on the far side of this procurement exercise, we should have a single waste authority. I cannot derail the ongoing exercise, because people would say that I had changed the rules of the game, created uncertainty and that they may make a legal challenge. Therefore, I have to exhaust the current process. However, on the far side of that process and once the matter is settled, whatever way it is settled, a single waste procurement authority is the right way to go.

We will see over the next short while whether all three, two or one of the groups get over the deliverability and affordability line. However, I am determined that that should happen, whatever the outcome might be, so that the picture of waste procurement over the next 20 or 25 years is clear for all to see.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Minister referred on a number of occasions to a single waste authority. Does the Minister see the building of an incinerator in Northern Ireland as an answer from a single waste authority?

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

You are not going to draw me in. All article 31 applications will be properly considered. Hopefully, decisions will be made quickly, and, on the far side of that, the Member might have an answer.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. I think that the only thing that a single waste authority could deliver is an incinerator. There is not plenty of scope for otherwise.

Has the Minister made up his mind whether the 25-year contracts are good value for the future? Is it not time to look at alternative sources for dealing with waste?

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

First, I have very much interrogated the whole issue. It is going to be one of the single biggest long-term financial commitments made on behalf of the people of the North of Ireland, whatever way it shapes up. I have looked closely at it. Although we are making significant strides with, for example, recycling targets, I have now challenged the councils to recycle 60% of domestic waste. Although we have made significant progress, and we need to upgrade and escalate all that, especially around recycling waste for other purposes, there is going to be a strategic gap.

Over the next number of years, especially beyond 2020, the volume that might go to landfill will increase even as we increase the volume that is recycled. There will be a strategic gap, and we need to deal with that gap by looking at what can be used in another, more environmentally friendly, way and that which has to be diverted from landfill. I am satisfied that we will need a mechanism — and the more environmentally friendly and green the mechanism, the better we will be — because it will advertise the green and clean credentials of the North of Ireland and, as I think we will have more and more opportunity to do so, show that renewables are Ireland's single biggest economic opportunity.

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

Does the Minister agree that the huge drop in the amount of waste going to landfill means that there has to be a significant change? Will he assure me that the awful word "superdump" can now be removed from our vocabulary and that much of the process will be done locally?

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

A lot of it can be done locally, but a lot of it is not done locally. As I have said to the House before, on the island of Ireland, 30% of plastics are recycled. Of that percentage, only 30% are recycled on the island of Ireland. Therefore, the vast majority of plastics go to landfill, and much of what is recycled is taken out of the country for other purposes. We have a strategic, economic and environmental opportunity if we manage the recycling business in a much more efficient and effective manner. Again, that will advertise the renewables opportunities on the island of Ireland. I want to see that we move to a landfill ban — I will be talking about that over the next period of time — to demonstrate that we push ourselves when it comes to the green and clean agenda.