Northern Ireland Assembly, 22 October 2013

392 contributions from 61 members. The official report.

Ministerial Statements

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Le do chead, a Cheann Comhairle, ba mhaith liom ráiteas a dhéanamh ar an tuairisic faoi chur chun cinn an oideachais roinnte a d’fhoilsigh grúpa comhairliúcháin an Aire i mí Márta. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the report of the ministerial advisory group on advancing shared education, which was published in March. In doing so, I will set out my response to the recommendations and will indicate how I intend to move forward.

Advancing shared education is one of the most important and sensitive challenges facing civic society. If we are to succeed, there must be a shared readiness to change. Members will recall that advancing shared education is at the heart of the Programme for Government, and establishing the independent advisory group was a key commitment. I was very pleased when Professor Paul Connolly from the School of Education at Queen's University agreed to chair the group, and when his fellow members Dawn Purvis and P J O'Grady also took up the challenge. I thank them for their work and for producing a very comprehensive, thoughtful and thought-provoking report. I also thank everyone who engaged with the group for their contributions.

In debating the report, let us remind ourselves of why sharing is important and of what we are trying to achieve. My starting point is the educational case for sharing, to contribute to raising standards, tackling underachievement and creating a better society for all. In planning for the future, we need to address a key question: what sorts of schools do we want? We have many different types of school, each proud of their identity and ethos. I know from my visits how much parents and communities value those schools and how passionately they care about them. So, having that choice in our system is a strength. We need to now build on that with confidence that a shared education system is inclusive of all and marginalises no one.

However, choice cannot be at the expense of good education. Our schools need to change, and greater sharing is part of that change. We have too many schools that cannot by themselves provide the rich, high-quality educational experience that our children need and deserve. To make that change, we must actively plan for shared education. That means that we must also move away from planning by competition, school versus school and sector versus sector in a battle for scarce resources. As Minister, I see far too many development proposals that are written as if the school up the road does not exist. That has to change.

We know that parents and children want quality, high-performing schools in their local communities. The parents and communities that I meet are up for sharing. They want choice, but they are not asking for separation. I believe that the vast majority of parents put quality first. They will choose shared local schools if they provide a quality education. Tá an fhianaise ann. The evidence is there.

The Lisanelly complex has fired the imagination of the community in Omagh and is a game changer for how we plan education. I have seen other good examples of communities in the Moy, in Fermanagh and in Ballycastle, coming together to look for shared solutions and finding new ways to ensure access to good local schools. So, shared education is not a bolt-on or optional extra. It is fundamental to delivering good schools and central to my vision that every learner should achieve his or her full potential.

Good education comes first, but equality and good relations add to the case for change. Choice cannot be at the expense of good education, and neither can it be at the cost of separation by religious belief, socio-economic status or educational needs. Such separation is bad for children and bad for society. Separation is damaging, unnecessary and avoidable, and society has the power to change it if the will is there.

In higher and further education, sharing and integration is already the norm. Why should schools be any different? We have sharing in preschool education and youth services. We have integrated schools, naturally shared schools and many other examples of good practice in schools working together. However, we can, and we must, do more. Sharing must become the accepted reality at every stage of education, from early years to postgraduate study.

There is also a persuasive equality case. We have good schools serving children of every religious faith and none. Today, no child is denied a good education because of their religion; however, the same cannot be said for socio-economic status. We know that children living in lower-income brackets are at much higher risk of educational underachievement. Members are familiar with the standard measure. Our aim is that every child should leave school with at least five good GCSEs, including English and maths. Today, only 34% of children who are entitled to free school meals achieve that. For other children, the figure is 68%. So, a child from a lower-income bracket is at double the risk of underachievement. That is unacceptable, and we must change it.

We also know that academic selection is a barrier to children on free school meals and from lower-income families. Just over 7% of children in grammar schools are entitled to free school meals. For other post-primary schools, the figure is 28%. So, poorer children are more likely to be rejected by grammar schools. Is that what those schools want? Only they can answer that question, but segregation by parental income is a reality that we cannot ignore.

Members know my views on academic selection, and I will say more on that in a few moments when I turn to the recommendations that are contained in the report. Whatever happens in relation to selection, we need greater sharing across the socio-economic divide. I am sometimes accused of having an anti-grammar agenda. Let me put it on the record once again that I do not. I have an anti-academic selection agenda. I offer this challenge to grammar schools: educate the whole community, not just a part of it. Across the world, the best-performing education systems combine excellence with equality of outcomes. In other words, almost all their pupils achieve high standards, not just a few. That must surely be our goal, too.

Bringing all that together, it is clear that sharing brings educational benefits; sharing builds respect for diversity and good relations; sharing builds equality; and sharing builds a confident community. So, my vision is one of education without barriers; good schools where children learn, grow and develop together and where sharing is the accepted normality. Shared education can and should involve every type of school. It is about developing local solutions to local needs, not one size fits all. It is a challenge to all but a threat to none. Every school can share, and I challenge every school to ask itself what more it can do.

Before turning to the recommendations in the report, I want to talk about the relationship between shared education and the integrated sector. Let me make it clear: they are different routes to the same objective. The right model is the model that enjoys the support of the local community. Integrated education will continue to play an important role, and my Department, in line with its statutory duty, will continue to encourage and facilitate it.

Shared education should also be encouraged and facilitated, and communities should be encouraged to choose the model that suits them best. That is in line with the current approach to integrated education, where the transformation process begins with consultation with the local community and a parental ballot, before the submission of a development proposal to the Department.

Every community should be on a journey to sharing. Different routes will be chosen, and some will get there sooner than others. When a community takes a step, however modest, we should encourage and support it, and, yes, perhaps challenge it to go further, but in a positive manner.

I will now turn to the recommendations contained in the report. The report contains 20 recommendations in five groups. I welcome all the recommendations. There are some that I accept fully and will aim to take forward as soon as possible. There are others that I accept in principle, but there may be a better way forward than what the group recommended. A third group needs further consideration and debate here in the Assembly and across our society.

The recommendations begin with mainstreaming, which is the right starting point. We need to ensure that sharing is in the DNA of our education system, in legislation, policy and the structure of the Education and Skills Authority (ESA). I want to be in a position to bring the Education Bill back to the Executive and the Assembly in the coming weeks. However I cannot do that on my own.

In bringing the Bill back, I propose to include a statutory definition of shared education and provisions for ESA to encourage and facilitate it. Those will complement the provisions on integrated and Irish-medium education, and will not reduce or dilute them in any way. I will also require ESA to reflect sharing in its structure, in its corporate plans and in its strategies, and I will hold it to account for doing so.

The report also recommended the inclusion of a shared-education premium in the common funding scheme. I accept that in principle, but further consideration is needed before we move to implementation. However, I acknowledge that, if shared education is to grow and develop, we will need to mainstream financial support for any additional costs involved. Shared education is very much at the heart of the Together: Building a United Community programme.

In addition to those programmes, my Department is working with Atlantic Philanthropies and the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) with a view to putting in place an additional funding programme to support shared education. As we move ahead, I will look carefully at the evidence so as to ensure that whatever financial support we provide is targeted at what works best. I also need to see what additional resources my Executive colleagues will make available for mainstreaming.

The second group of recommendations deals with supporting schools, ensuring that sharing delivers real educational benefits, and recognising and promoting the spread of good practice. I also welcome those recommendations. I have asked the chief inspector to consider how best to take them forward in the inspection process and the inspection cycle, and to report back to me.

We ask a great deal of our teachers, and it is right that we equip and support them to deliver. That is why ESA will have statutory duties to ensure support for teachers and schools' governors. I also welcome the recommendations on supporting and developing teachers. Those will be fed into a revised teacher professional development strategy, which is already under development. I will ensure that it includes an examination of how best to equip and support teachers to deliver shared education.

The third group of recommendations — 9 to 14 — focus on what schools need to do in relation to engagement with parents, the delivery of the curriculum and the rights of children and young people to participate in the decisions that affect them. I welcome those recommendations.

As I said earlier, supporting schools will be a key part of ESA’s role, and that will include supporting schools to communicate with parents.

Recommendation 10 calls for a review of the delivery of key aspects of the curriculum. I accept that recommendation in principle and welcome the emphasis on promoting equality. However, taking that forward requires careful thought. In any review of the curriculum or its delivery, our aim must be to support teachers to adopt best practice. Therefore, as a first step, I have asked the chief inspector to carry out a survey of current practice, with a particular focus on what additional support and development teachers need.

The report draws attention to the right of young people to participate and be heard in relation to the decisions that affect their lives. I support that, and my aim is that every school will have an effective method of encouraging young people’s participation in the life of the school. My Department will continue to encourage schools to implement the Democra-school programme and to take up the advice, support and a guidance pack available from the Commissioner for Children and Young People. However, I believe that effective participation of young people is likely to be achieved more effectively if the approach is decided by the schools, rather than being imposed from outside. Therefore, I would prefer not to go down the compulsory route at this time. However, I will keep that under review, and if sufficient progress is not being made, I will consider the case for stronger action.

The report also recommended that schools should be subject to the statutory equality and good relations duties in section 75. I strongly support the intention behind that recommendation. Every school must play its part in promoting equality of opportunity and good relations. Every school must tackle discrimination and bullying, whether it stems from religion, sexual orientation or any other aspect of a young person’s identity. Members will be aware that this is a cross-cutting matter, as equality legislation is the responsibility of OFMDFM.

I want to discuss recommendations 12 and 13 of the report with my Executive colleagues and consider how best to give effect to them. Using section 75, which sets out minimum requirements, might be one option. However, there is nothing to stop us from enhancing our equality duties so as to ensure better policymaking. Another way might be to adopt the approach used in England, where schools have to set clear objectives for promoting equality and are held to account for their delivery. Whichever option we choose, I want the emphasis to be on action not bureaucracy.

Recommendation 14 deals with special education. It calls for the development of effective models of collaboration between mainstream schools, special schools and educational support centres. One of my priorities as Minister has been the building of an inclusive educational culture within and between our schools. Therefore, I strongly support the recommendation. However, it would be wrong not to acknowledge the work already being undertaken in that area.

The current special educational needs (SEN) framework already promotes inclusion, ensuring, wherever possible, that children and young people are taught in mainstream schools. That will remain a fundamental tenet of the work being taken forward as part of the SEN and inclusion review. That being said, where a child’s best interests are served by attendance at a special school, that option will remain open.

In respect of the collaboration across sectors, special schools are full and active members of the area learning communities. That is essential to provide opportunities for pupils to learn and grow alongside their peers in special and mainstream schools. Going forward, I will ensure that shared education projects and shared education campuses will include special schools where that demand exists. Arvalee special school will be taken forward as part of the Lisanelly shared education campus, with the construction of the new Arvalee school and resource centre commencing next year.

The fourth set of recommendations — 15 to 17 — deal with area planning, which will be central to the delivery of shared education. I will make it a priority for my Department to bring forward guidance on a range of sharing options that schools and communities may wish to explore; clear, practical advice on how to bring forward a development proposal for sharing; and guidelines on the development of area plans to ensure that shared education is encouraged.

Recommendation 16 calls on my Department to meet parental demand for different types of schools. In principle, I accept that recommendation, with one important caveat. Any proposal for a new school must be sustainable and capable of delivering high quality education for the pupils it serves. Let me say clearly that I want to see collaboration, not competition; and sharing, not duplication.

Recommendation 17 calls for it to be made easier for a school to transform its ethos from one type to another. I am pleased to say that the Education Bill already provides for that. Every school will be able to decide its own ethos and set that out in its scheme of management and its employment scheme. Any school will be able to change its ethos at any time, simply by bringing forward new schemes. There will be no need for any complex or bureaucratic legal procedure.

Finally, I turn to recommendations 18 to 20, which deal with academic selection. It will surprise no one when I say that I welcome and strongly endorse those recommendations. Some have criticised the group for including them and claim that they have nothing to do with sharing. Those people are missing a very important point. Sharing means educating without barriers and without segregation. The group's advice is very clear: selection discriminates, selection divides and selection is a barrier to children from low-income families. Those who ignore the evidence should ask themselves this: if segregation by religion is wrong, how can segregation by income be right?

I look forward to the day when this Assembly decides to end academic selection for good. Until that day, I will strive to make it irrelevant and limit the damage that it does. I will continue to promote all-ability schools where academic and vocational learning is the norm. Such schools will be taken forward through area planning, as recommended by the advisory group.

In conclusion, the report asks us all to think differently about the delivery of education. It reminds us that sharing begins with respect for diversity and the right to equality. It asks us to put the needs of young people ahead of the interests of institutions, and it challenges long-held assumptions about what is possible. Through sharing, we all benefit and no one loses. Sharing means celebrating diversity, not undermining or hiding it. Educational ethos, like language and culture, should be used to build bridges, not barriers. Our education system should be enriched by diversity and not blighted by separation. Molaim an tuairisc don Tionól. I commend the report to the Assembly.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I apologise to the Minister and the House that I will not be able to stay for the remainder of questions to the Minister. Unfortunately, I have to leave because I promised to attend something.

I have come to the House, listened to the Minister and read the statement that he made. It is extremely disappointing that, yet again, he has lit the touchpaper and created more contention and controversy around an issue on which there should not be controversy. The Minister is under extensive pressure in relation to the common funding formula, and he would have been better spending his time in Rathgael House, addressing that problem, rather than putting other problems on the table today.

On behalf of the Committee, I can say that we should celebrate the growth and popularity of sharing among schools that have been successful in that regard. Indeed, reference has been made to the work that is done in places such as Ballycastle in my own constituency.

The Committee took evidence from the ministerial advisory group in May, and decided to undertake an inquiry into shared and integrated education later in the session. It seems that, when the Education Committee announces that it will undertake an inquiry or considers tabling a plenary debate, there is action from the Department on that issue. I am glad, in one respect, that the Education Minister seems to be paying attention to what goes on in the Committee.

The Minister appeared to indicate his support for recommendation 17, which suggests that a transformation process should be put in place to allow schools to adopt an alternative ethos. The Minister also referred to the existing development proposal process for transformation to integrated status.

Is it the Minister's intention that the implementation of recommendation 17 will replace the current development process? Is he, therefore, able to alter the process by which popular oversubscribed schools will be allowed to expand, as recommended in the report? Will the terms of reference of the reported ongoing review of the development proposal process include all that?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member is out of time.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Has the Minister noted the legislative proposals in Scotland to take the Minister out of such contentious development proposal decisions completely?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

That was quite a lengthy contribution. I am not sure what the controversial part is because the Member did not get to that bit. In relation to pressure —

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

[Inaudible.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the Minister to answer.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Pressure goes with the job. The important thing is how you deal with it. I can assure you —

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

You do not deal with it too well.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I can assure you that, as was recently evidenced in the media when I challenged political parties to come forward with alternatives to my proposals, they are left fumbling somewhat.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

[Inaudible.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

You have another three days to come forward with alternatives to my proposals on the common funding formula, and I wish you well with that.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

[Inaudible.] Those days are over.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

You are doing nothing.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Minister has the Floor.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

You are doing nothing.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Thank you, Chair. I am not sure what the Member's position is on the shared education report because I have yet to hear a formal response from him or his party. The shared education report is thought-provoking and challenges us all. There are challenges in the report for all parties around the Chamber. It deserves to be studied closely and given the respect that it is due. As I stated in my response to the report, it should form an integral part of our education system moving forward.

It is OK to stand up in Castlereagh and make a statement about shared education, and it is OK to make commitments in the Programme for Government. However, if you are serious about shared education, it is much more than a green-and-orange issue. Rift lines run through this society that relate not only to orange and green but to those who have and those who have a whole lot less. Unless we deal with that, we will leave behind a large section of society, which will be to the detriment of this entire society. So the ministerial advisory group took that on board and brought that challenge to the Assembly and to all involved. We have to answer that challenge and deal with it.

As for taking Ministers out of decisions, and out of this, that and the other, I got involved in politics to make decisions. I was elected by the people to do so, as was everyone in the House. When those decisions get difficult, you do not opt out of them. You make a decision on the basis of evidence, believe that it is the right decision and stand by it. That is what politics, leadership and being in a Minister's post is about. I will not accept any proposals to take Ministers out of decision-making roles. That is democracy at play, and I will not accept any dilution of democracy in that role.

I have said that I accept recommendation 17. The Education Bill, which is gathering dust somewhere, deals with that recommendation. If you want to deal with it, bring the Education Bill forward, and we will deal with it.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I can assure you that there will be more dust after this.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us not debate across the Chamber. The Chair of the Education Committee has had quite a bit of latitude this morning, as all Chairs of Committees normally have when it comes to ministerial statements. However, from here on in, let us have questions on the statement.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. I echo the Minister's comments in thanking Paul Connolly, Dawn Purvis and P J O' Grady for their work. Indeed, it is commendable that the group not only has included socio-economic integration but has put it at the heart of what shared education means. The media and those who are disengaged from the debate are often consumed by a false ethnic debate over shared versus integrated education.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Will the Member come to his question?

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Not a problem. Indeed, the fundamental driver of raising educational attainment is undoubtedly the importance of socio-economic integration in our schools. Will the Minister ensure that, as he advances with shared education, all barriers in our system, be they ethnic or economic, will be removed?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for his question. As I posed in my statement, if Members believe that segregation by religion is wrong, how can they believe that segregation by income is right? That is the challenge for the Assembly. Facts and figures may get in the way of a good argument, but no one has been able to challenge the facts and figures that I have produced on education underachievement and the detrimental impact that it is having on families from lower income backgrounds.

The Programme for Government not only sets us a target on education, shared education and improving education it also sets a specific target, in its opening paragraphs, on tackling social deprivation and sets challenges for me on social deprivation.

The ministerial advisory group has come forward with a well-researched and well-informed report on sharing education in its totality. Those who are serious about sharing education need to study the report in detail and if they disagree with its findings they need to come back with an evidence-based response to those findings, instead of what we have been hearing since the report was challenged and what we have heard in the Chamber this morning.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his statement.

Díreach, ba mhaith liom ceist a chur ar an Aire an aontaíonn sé liom go bhfuil sár-obair déanta ag na coistí foghlama ceantair agus, go deimhin, ag tionscal oideachais roinnte Ollscoil na Ríona. Arbh fhéidir leis a rá an mbeidh níos mó airgead ar fáil, nó cad iad na hacmhainní breise a bhéas ar fáil le roinnt an oideachais a chothú?

I am sure that the Minister will agree that the area learning communities have laid down the foundation for shared education and should be congratulated, as is the case with the shared education project at Queen's University. Will he give us more detail on the financial package that will be available to advance shared education?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chomhalta as a cheist. I thank the Member for his question. We are currently in discussions with Atlantic Philanthropies, along with OFMDFM, about investing a significant amount of money in shared education programmes. I do not want to go into any more detail than that, because the discussions are at an advanced stage and all partners to those discussions are working towards a successful conclusion.

On the question of mainstreaming funding in the future, the common funding formula, as we know, is currently under review, but it can be reviewed on an annual basis. First, we need to move the definition of shared education forward as proposed in the ESA Bill so that we will have a legislative basis on which to judge projects that schools and communities are bringing forward for shared education. That will allow us to build criteria and fund those projects.

My focus at the moment on funding is to continue those discussions with OFMDFM and Atlantic Philanthropies, get a legislative designation of shared education and move forward to including that in a future common funding formula review.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

I welcome the statement and most of what has been included in it but, unfortunately, the Minister has reverted to type on academic selection, which is an issue that seriously undermines the report and his otherwise positive statement.

Will he explain how, in principle, he accepts recommendation 16 to meet parental demand but then states that he will strive to make selection irrelevant? What about parental demand in Craigavon, which shows overwhelming support for the Dickson plan?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for her question. She welcomed the majority of the report and dismissed the rest but did not give any evidence as to why she dismissed it. I assume that she is talking about the last three recommendations. Where is your evidence to dismiss them? Where is your evidence to dismiss the evidence not only in this report but in numerous other local and international reports? Where was your evidence to dismiss that of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child? The Member can stand up and say that she dismisses something, and she is perfectly entitled to do that. However, in a political debating chamber, there is an onus on you to stand up and to present the evidence for why you dismissed it.

The report refers to parental choice, but it does so in the context of all children and all parents having a choice. The system that the Member appears to be wedded to does not present choice or equality for all. The evidence shows that time and again.

I have to say that I welcomed your leader's contribution to the education debate on Saturday when he spoke of how the 11-plus was a blunt instrument. He quoted something that I have often said myself, which is that the exam asks whether you are clever instead of how you are clever. My response to that is that it is the role of all schools to develop that in every child. That should not be a barrier to a child getting into a school. I welcome Mr Nesbitt's contribution to that debate, and I think that we need to expand on it.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I largely welcome the statement and the report. It is very refreshing to see a report on shared education that, on the same page, fully acknowledges the position of integrated education. Recommendation 16 deals with parental demand, and, in line with that theme, which runs through the report, and with the theme of the ease of transformation and so on, will the Minister assure us that, if integrated schools want to expand in the future due to parental demand — I am not talking about new ones — he will see to it that they are given every opportunity to do so?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The current method by which schools expand is through the development process. I have committed to reviewing that. In answer to the Member's question, we also have a statutory obligation to facilitate and promote integrated education. My Department takes that very seriously, and I assure you than any proposal from an integrated school will be read through those policies. We have a responsibility to allow those schools to expand and to meet parental demand for integrated education.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Minister, I note that, in your statement, you said that recommendation 3 refers to the:

"inclusion of a shared education premium in the common funding scheme."

You also said that you would carefully consider that. Will the Minister not also consider a carefully targeted premium for underachieving schools? I assume that the Minister's real target is to improve achievement in our schools, no matter what sector they come from.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I included such a proposal in the current review of the common funding formula, and the Member's party has lambasted me for doing so.

I am not going to fund schools simply because they are underachieving. I will want to know that any further funding that goes to schools will be used to raise educational attainment. It is part of a programme of raising educational attainment that I and my predecessor have developed over the past number of years. It is closely aligned to Every School a Good School to ensure that there is community involvement in our schools and that communities and parents are encouraged to become involved in and take ownership of education. So, I would not argue for one moment that more funding on its own is the answer to raising standards. It is part of a programme of policies that will raise standards and that is required.

I have answered on my deliberations on the premium going forward. I have strongly argued that, if we are going to raise educational attainment, particularly among socially deprived communities, we also need to resource it. However, those resources need to be carefully monitored and to have outcomes.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle, agus gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas.

The Minister's statement rightly welcomes the good work of the independent advisory group on shared education. I put on record my thanks to organisations such as the Fermanagh Trust Sharing Education Programme, which is funded through Atlantic Philanthropies and which has very much been leading the debate on shared education across religious and social divides. The Minister highlighted that. Does he agree with me that sharing across the border, which the Fermanagh Trust Sharing Education Programme has trialled, is also an avenue that we need to go down and that, where it is in everyone's best interests, it should form part of any plan to deal with the future of shared education?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I also place on record my appreciation to all the organisations that have been involved in shared education programmes down through the years. I will not mention any specific bodies, because I may leave someone out and cause unwarranted offence. Therefore, I congratulate all the groups and funders involved.

Shared education is not a new idea. The need for greater collaboration and sharing between the different education sectors that we have on the island dates back decades — even before partition. We have to mainstream it, resource it and drive it forward, and there has to be the political will to do that. I confirm to the House that I have the political will to do it, and the House and the Executive need to back that up in order to move it forward. As with any policy, there may be different points of view on different parts of it, but I think that the House can get behind the main ethos and the main policy.

As to sharing education across the border, of course that is part of sharing education. The border has had a detrimental effect on the socio-economic well-being of many border communities. If we can overcome that in education terms, I am happy to support it.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I assume that the statement was written by the Minister and not by civil servants, because I do not think that any would put their signature to such an ill-thought-out statement.

I want to ask a fundamental question, especially since funding, planning and even the existence of schools will depend on whether they are regarded as being shared schools. In his statement, the Minister indicated that he believes that division can occur on the basis of religion, income, ability, sexual orientation, disability and ethnicity. Is he saying that he is now going to expect every school in Northern Ireland to have a quota of people who fall into those categories, or is this simply rhetoric, and schools can continue to do whatever they want and admit whomever they want? Only one of two ways is available. Either you have —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to finish.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Either there is a way of measuring shared education or this is a meaningless document. If it is the former, will the Minister tell us whether he is about to introduce for shared education —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I must now insist.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

— a quota on the basis of the divisions that he outlined in his statement?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member must finish.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It appears that civil servants wrote the Member's statements when he was a Minister, but that is up to him. I would not read out a statement unless I was comfortable with it. I suspect that the Member has read out a number of statements that he was not comfortable with.

In answer to his question, I am not sure. Do you want me to introduce a quota or do you not want me to introduce a quota? I am confused, because you seem to be condemning the quota idea, and then you seem to be condemning the idea that there is no quota. The Member needs to read the statement in its totality, and he needs to go back and read the report.

The definition of shared education is "driven by communities". We are telling communities that this is our definition of shared education: if communities and schools can come together, and they fit into the definition of shared education. It may be two out of three, three out of four, or four out of five. However, I am not suggesting that we introduce a quota. Why would I suggest that? This has to be driven by the communities involved in shared education. We have to have something against which we can measure schools' contributions to the shared education debate. We have a definition, on which I am bringing forward further guidance, and we will bring forward further guidance still when we mainstream funding towards shared education. When the Member makes up his mind whether he wants me to introduce a quota or not, he can come back to me.

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

Given that the Minister has outlined the merits of shared education, which I think is regarded as good in theory, and given that the Lisanelly project in Omagh has largely been welcomed by the local learning community, what timescale does he envisage for getting some practical work done on trying to implement the shared education strategy, because timelines and money will be crucial?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Shared education is rolling out as we speak. I would like to see a legal definition put in place through the ESA Bill. However, if the ESA continues to be delayed, I will consider bringing forward legislation to introduce a definition of shared education separate from the ESA Bill, as I place such importance on it.

Let us use Lisanelly as an example. Demolition work starts at Lisanelly this week. That is a firm sign, in one sense, that work is beginning and that construction will take place. We are clearing the site, and construction on Arvalee School will commence in 2015 or thereabouts. Therefore, money is being pumped into the project. We are in advanced discussions with OFMDFM and Atlantic Philanthropies about bringing forward funding for shared education. There is a rolling programme of work on shared education going on as we speak.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I welcome the Minister's statement. Does he agree that our grammar schools must be encouraged to participate fully in the sharing agenda to the benefit of our entire community?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Without doubt. No school should be allowed to stand on its own at the expense of schools around it or the broader community that it serves. The figures on socio-economic sharing are stark. The average free school meals entitlement in grammar schools is 7%. The average for post-primary schools is 28%. No one has yet challenged those figures or suggested that they are wrong. That is a challenge for the grammar schools. If grammar schools want to educate the entire community, they need to take action to educate the entire community.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I welcome the Minister's statement. He outlined a vision of shared education that is much more realistic than comments others made. The Minister puts heavy emphasis on the Education and Skills Authority. It may be asking the obvious, but how long can he run and continue to fund that in shadow form? When will he bring back the legislation and how does he hope to get it through the House?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I have a position paper that, I believe, is a significant compromise on my behalf. It allows others, in my opinion, to offer goodwill to the Education Bill, but that is a matter for them. I cannot bring the Education Bill back to the House unless the Executive approve it. To do that, I need to get the Education Bill on the Executive agenda. That has not been achieved. This cannot go on forever. The Executive need to make up their mind about whether they want to deliver that Programme for Government commitment. That day of realisation is coming to us.

I suspect that we will not now meet the Programme for Government commitment to have ESA established in 2013. These are the last weeks in October. I have a Programme for Government commitment signed up to by all Executive parties to have it established by 2013. I suspect that that target is now missed. If it is missed, the Executive will have to make up their mind on whether they want to continue with it or set it aside, but it is coming to make-up-your-mind time.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

It is quite clear that the Minister knows that he has lost the argument on academic selection, hence his desperation to distort the issue by suggesting that it is a question of segregation by income. Thousands of children will sit selection tests in the coming weeks. How many questions will ask them about the income of their parents? Is it not quite clear that testing is about aptitude and ability? Why is the Minister trying to distort the issue by pretending that it is selection by income when it is nothing of the sort?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Member has a reputation for having a mind that interrogates subjects. Why he chooses to turn off his mind when it comes to academic selection is beyond me. The Member is a barrister and he works with and presents evidence. All the evidence shows that academic selection has everything to do with income and absolutely nothing to do with educational ability. All evidence shows that.

As soon as a child from a lower-income background walks into the assembly hall and sits down in front of the unproven, unregulated test, they are being economically tested. The evidence shows that by the outcomes of those tests. It shows by the very fact that the average for grammar schools for free school meals is 7% as opposed to 28% across society. International evidence shows us that children from lower economic backgrounds are at greater disadvantage in education than in any other sector.

So, when the Member is standing in Twaddell Avenue, Portadown town centre and on other roads telling the Protestant working class that he is looking after them, you are not kidding anybody because you are leaving those people behind time and time again every time you use the false argument that academic selection does not disenfranchise anyone.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

The Minister states that he will continue to promote all-ability schools where academic and vocational learning are the norm, and that that will be taken forward through area planning. If such all-ability schools are rejected by the overwhelming majority of people, will he endeavour to force them on a community? I think particularly of my community in the Dickson plan area.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

There is another one defending the Protestant working class. Huh? You are not interested in the Dickson plan; you are interested in two schools in the Dickson plan, namely Portadown College and Lurgan College. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Those are the only two schools that you are interested in in the Dickson plan area. So, let us dispel the myth that you are defending the Dickson plan because you are not. They just happen to be the schools that one of your major funders is also interested in.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Let us have remarks through the Chair.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

But, in relation — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, order. Allow the Minister to speak. The Minister must be heard. Let us have all remarks through the Chair.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Through the Chair, the Member knows fine well who his supporters are and who is backing some of the false and disgraceful arguments that are being presented in the media.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, order. Allow the Minister to conclude. Order.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Member is opposed to all-ability schools. What is his opposition to all-ability schools? Surely the purpose of education is to allow all people of all abilities to flourish and enrich themselves.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

One size doesn't fit all.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, order.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Member responds:

"One size doesn't fit all."

It is a pity that the leading economies and the leading education systems in the world all disagree with him. It is proven, not by Sinn Féin research or Department of Education research but by international research, that those schools that have an all-ability mix flourish and that those young people in them who are academically gifted do better than they would do if they were closeted away in schools that claim to be academically superior. So, all that evidence suggests that you have got it wrong, but the argument does not suit you and it does not suit your party's supporters, and by, "party's supporters", I mean your funders. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, order.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It does not support the narrow agenda that you are driving forward. That is the problem. Not the facts, not the evidence, not the support material and not the research. It does not suit your narrow agenda.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I welcome the Minister's statement and recognise the work of the ministerial advisory group and the shared education programme at Queen's University, which is doing exceptional work in this area.

In his statement, the Minister said that we do not want an education system that is blighted by separation, and the First Minister has said that it is fundamentally wrong that our education system separates our children on the basis of religion at such a young age. How will the Minister reassure people who say that these proposals fall far short of the fundamental change needed to address that separation?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Time and time again in this society, it has been proven that you need to encourage and facilitate communities to move forward. I accept that communities are often ahead of the politicians. The shared education report allows for the encouragement and facilitating of communities to move forward and challenges communities and politicians to move forward at a pace that has not been seen in the past.

I want to see an education system in which we are not separated by religion, ethnicity or socio-economic background. We have not achieved that yet, but the shared education report and my responses to it allow us to move forward at a pace that will achieve that goal in the short to medium term. That is where we need to focus. We may argue over the last three recommendations in the report, but there are 17 other recommendations that have general support in the Assembly and need to be driven forward.

OFMDFM is backing up its calls with finances and is supporting us in our discussions with Atlantic Philanthropies. It is also encouraging all Ministers to play their part in building a united community. This is one of the building blocks in building a united community.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. That concludes questions on the ministerial statement. Members know that points of order are not taken during ministerial statements, but I will take Mr Anderson's point of order now.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. During the Minister's reply to my colleague Stephen Moutray, he made a number of references to the funding of my party. Is it in order for the Minister, in the Chamber or otherwise, to make references to supporters of parties when a Member asks a legitimate question and expects a responsible answer? The continual casting across the Chamber of references to supporters and personal attitudes needs to be looked at.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

This is a debating Chamber, where there is an exchange of views. The Member has put that on record. I think that that is more important than anything else.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Is it further to Mr Anderson's point of order?

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

In his answer to the question that I raised, the Minister indicated that I was interested in only two schools in my constituency. I refute that. I work for every school in my community. The Minister might be embarrassed about the situation that he has got himself into with the maintained sector. However, he will not destroy the controlled sector in my constituency.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Once again, the Member has put that on record.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Moutray said that he refutes the allegation that the Minister made. I ask you to review Hansard to see what Mr Moutray actually said because I think that you will find that it was unparliamentary language.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I continually read Hansard. Let us move on.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

As the House is aware, the Planning Bill completed Consideration Stage on 25 June. Since I took over the portfolio of Minister of the Environment, with responsibility for planning, I have carefully considered the provisions of the Bill and taken time to meet key stakeholders and listen to their views. I have reflected at length on the purpose and intent of the Bill when it was agreed with the Executive and introduced to the Assembly in January this year, and I have looked back to the Second Stage debate. I will quote my predecessor Alex Attwood, who summed up the purpose and intent of the Bill at that time when he said:

"It takes the elements that will be put into place and puts them into place now in order to ensure that the councils and councillors have a better planning system that is more fit to serve the interests of ratepayers post 2015." — [Official Report, Vol 81, No 2, p43, col 2].

The Bill, as introduced, included two provisions that had not featured in the Planning Act 2011. First, in preparing planning policy and plans, the Department should do so with the objective of promoting economic development. Secondly, when it comes to the determination of planning applications by the Department and, in future, by the councils, material considerations will include a reference to any economic advantages or disadvantages that are likely to result from the approval or refusal of planning permission. My predecessor, rightly, supported those provisions because they affirm what already happens today, which is that economic considerations are material when it comes to determining a planning application or framing planning policy. That does not give determinative weight to economic considerations in making a planning decision but it means that they are a material factor, along with other material factors that are part of the planning system. That is what the Bill states; it does not state more than that.

I will move on to amendments 20 and 26, which were tabled at Consideration Stage. Those amendments were the subject of great concern to many Members. Indeed, the debate went on for a considerable time over two days. Despite, in my view, the weight of argument being against the amendments, they were voted for and now stand part of the Bill.

Since taking office, I have held meetings with key stakeholders, including representatives of the business community in Northern Ireland, local government, environmental groups and academics from Queen's University and the University of Ulster in order to listen to their thoughts on the Planning Bill, as amended at Consideration Stage.

I have carefully and fully studied the legal advice obtained by my predecessor, and I have made that advice publicly available. I have deliberated at considerable length on those amendments and still have serious concerns, which are held by many of the stakeholders. My concerns are threefold: legal; procedural; and evidential.

I will begin by addressing the legal concerns. Clause 15, as amended, will limit the right to judicially review certain planning decisions taken by OFMDFM, the Department or a future council. The legal advice that my predecessor received is clear on the amendment. That advice has been shared with Executive colleagues and others who requested it, and I believe that it is important to share it with all Members. Therefore, I have deposited a copy in the Library.

I will once again quote extracts from that advice for the record. It states:

"Planning decisions are generally regarded as determinative of civil rights ... However, judicial review is generally required to secure compliance with article 6 of the ECHR since decisions by government (local or national) are not considered to be independent, i.e. not independent of the executive.

If JR is restricted to EU and ECHR grounds then we do not consider that this would secure compliance with article 6 ECHR except in a narrow group of cases. JRs on traditional common law grounds of breach of procedural requirements, failures of consultation, Wednesbury unreasonableness and the like would not be within the narrow grounds permitted unless they overlapped with a permitted ground, e.g. some grounds relating to natural justice might overlap with article 6 ECHR. Even challenges based on ultra vires would be sought to be excluded.

Our view is that the exclusion proposed in terms of the grounds of challenges would amount to incompatibility with the ECHR and thus fail the legislative competence requirements of s.6 of the Northern Ireland Act".

I also have concerns about the economically significant planning zone amendment, and the legal advice that my predecessor received confirms those concerns. Again, I will quote an extract from that advice. It states:

“There are problems with European obligations in that proposals envisage that planning permission will be granted by the designation of the ESPZ for whatever is specified in the scheme”.

The advice continues:

"There is no exception made for sites designated pursuant to the Wild Birds Directive (special protection areas) or Habitats Directive (special areas of conservation) which have the protection of Article 6(3) ... of the Habitats Directive ... Since those provisions prohibit the grant of consent unless there are no likely significant effects caused to the designated site by the development or, following an appropriate assessment, it is found that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of the site, article 13A(2)"

— that is article 13A(2) of the Bill —

"would be in breach of the Directive".

The advice goes on to state:

“This would expose DOE to challenge to the legality of the provision and expose the UK to infraction proceedings by the Commission. In our view the proposals would fail the legislative competence requirements of s.6 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998”.

Returning to clause 15, I believe that we should exercise caution in relation to restricting the right to judicially review planning decisions. The Consideration Stage debate reflected very clearly the concerns of many Members of the Assembly. Not often do I agree with him, but on this occasion, I am compelled to agree with Mr Allister when, at Consideration Stage, he said:

“the courts have played a vital role as a restraint on the abuse of executive power, and that is why the function of judicial review has evolved over many years. However, the obvious effect and purpose of amendment No 26 is to remove from the citizen the right to have recourse to that remedy in the manner that he or she currently has.” — [Official Report, Vol 86, No 6, p67, col 1].

That view is also held by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which recently wrote to me on the matter and stated:

"judicial review plays an important and legitimate role in ensuring the proper administration of government and Clause 15 would, in effect, remove the court’s ability to review the legality, the rationality and the reasonableness of planning decisions."

I am also conscious of the views of the honourable Mr Justice Treacy, a senior judicial review (JR) judge in Northern Ireland, who earlier this year, in addressing a seminar, spoke on proposals to reform judicial review in England and Wales. His opening remarks sum up my concerns, and I will quote him:

"Judicial review is the principal means by which citizens can access the historic constitutional role of the courts to protect against abuses of power by public authorities. It is a vital safeguard, it promotes the public interest, encourages public bodies to act lawfully and within their powers, ensures such bodies are not above the law and protects the rights and interests of those affected by the unlawful exercise of power."

He also added:

"Lord Woolf, the former lord chief justice, and Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney-general, have warned that the government should proceed with "caution" with any changes that could be seen as restricting the right to hold politicians to account."

Clearly, these are matters that should greatly concern the Assembly. I do not believe that it is appropriate or sensible to bring forward provisions that fail the legislative competence requirements of section 6 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and run the risk of exposing Northern Ireland to infraction proceedings.

I will now outline the procedural concerns that I have. It is, of course, legitimate for amendments to be made during the passage of a Bill through the Assembly. However, those two significant amendments go far beyond what would normally be tabled at Consideration Stage, and I am concerned that they were never subjected to the full rigours of public consultation, Executive consideration or Environment Committee scrutiny. I do not, therefore, believe that the threshold for proper consultation and participation on those amendments has been met.

I will now deal with my evidential concerns. I wholeheartedly agree that the planning system has a role to play in facilitating economic development. There is clear evidence that we are responding to that imperative. As a result of vigorous action by my predecessor, which I intend to continue, the planning system is now much better placed to support economic development and provide greater certainty on outcomes and time frames for managing applications.

There are numerous examples of how planning has delivered approvals for key projects quickly. For example, the Peace Bridge in Derry has gone from receipt to approval in 11 weeks. There has been a £30 million redevelopment of Windsor Park football stadium in 11 weeks, which prompted the 'Belfast Telegraph' to say that it was a pity the Northern Ireland team cannot play with the same focus and pace as the Department of the Environment's (DOE) Planning Service. A £70 million regional radiotherapy unit at Altnagelvin Hospital was approved in 11 weeks. The northern portion of the Narrow Water Bridge was dealt with three weeks sooner than by An Bord Pleanála in the South. The peace building and reconciliation centre at Maze/Long Kesh was approved in five months, and the relocation of Royal Ulster Agricultural Society to Maze/Long Kesh was approved in less than six months.

In May 2011, there were 60 article 31 applications in the system, and, to date, a further 11 applications have been received. Of those 71 applications, 40 have been determined, reducing the number of article 31 applications in the system to 31 at present.

Just yesterday, I announced permission for a huge mixed-use development in Newtownards that will transform the now derelict Crepe Weavers factory site and could provide up to 400 jobs and give a tremendous economic and social boost to the area. That decision is further evidence of my determination to clear the backlog of planning applications and to provide a planning system that can deliver.

Since I became Minister, a number of other major significant applications have been approved. A 120-bed hotel and over 22,000 square feet of office development have been approved in Newry. That project is estimated to cost in the region of £12 million. Other approved applications include those for 11 separate storage and distribution units at Nutts Corner roundabout near Antrim; a multimillion pound mixed-use development at Glenmona in west Belfast that includes housing, a hotel, an education campus, local retailing, recreation and community facilities; and a new £20 million data centre in Coleraine. The latter is the first of three phases in the development of a data hub capitalising on the Project Kelvin high-speed transatlantic communications link. That application was turned around in just nine weeks. Such speedy decisions emphasise my Department’s commitment, and my commitment, to assist business and to help strengthen our economy. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

It also demonstrates that such applications are being handled consistently within the Programme for Government target to ensure that 90% of large-scale investment planning decisions are made within six months and that applications with job creation potential are given additional weight. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the planning system now effectively and demonstrably supports economic development. I am determined to work with all parties so that it can be further improved.

Judicial reviews are often high profile, but the reality is that they are relatively few in number. Although the Executive and, indeed, any Minister responsible for planning, might not always welcome such challenges, it is fair to say that such a process is a fundamental right of citizens. I could go a step further and say that the potential threat of judicial review has been one of the key reasons why the planning system has remained fair and objective. Over the past three years, there have been fewer than 20 judicial reviews of the 44,000 decisions that the Planning Service has made. That is a tiny fraction of the total number of decisions. It seems to me that restricting the right of citizens to challenge planning decisions is not only incompatible with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights but represents taking a hammer to crack a very small nut.

It is also a fact that the grounds for the most significant and high-profile planning JRs of recent years would be unaffected by these amendments, which acknowledge that a right of appeal to the High Court must remain where there is a question about the compatibility of a decision or determination with EU law. Such issues of EU law have been key grounds for many of the JR challenges to high-profile planning decisions of recent years. However, other grounds would be affected: for example, decisions that are made outside of legal powers or where the decision was plainly irrational.

As regards the proposal to introduce economically significant planning zones (ESPZs), I remind Members that existing provisions in the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 empower the Executive, through my Department, to make simplified planning zones, which are not materially different from ESPZs. Indeed, the amendments brought forward on ESPZs appear to have been largely duplicated from the earlier legislation. A simplified planning zone allows the planning authority to bring forward a scheme for an area that has the effect of granting planning permission to certain classes of development, as set out in the scheme, without the need to apply for planning permission. If simplified planning zones have been on the statute book for so long, it begs the question of why neither I nor any other planning Minister under direct rule or devolution has been approached about using the power. If it was considered that the exercise of such power should be a key feature of the economic package agreed with the London Government, why was my predecessor not simply consulted about how the law already in place could be activated? I would be very happy to consider any such approach. However, it is now clear that the intent of the amendments on ESPZs was not to introduce new planning powers but simply to make OFMDFM a new planning authority in Northern Ireland.

Bearing all that in mind, I see no good reason to introduce ESPZs and to vest such planning powers in another Department. It would introduce only confusion into the planning system. Furthermore, in considering the previous Planning Bill, the Assembly decided that the power to put in place simplified planning zones should transfer from my Department to local government as part of local government reform. What is now proposed in the amendments stands in stark contrast to the Executive and Assembly's decision to empower local government to bring forward zones of that kind. Therefore, it is an attempt not only to grab existing planning powers from my Department but to disempower future local government.

I am committed to local government reform, and I am the Minister responsible for driving that agenda to a satisfactory conclusion by April 2015. In agreeing the previous Planning Bill, the Assembly agreed that my Department should transfer the vast majority of the Department's planning powers to councils. That is the correct thing to do. I am concerned that the ESPZ amendment will dilute the Executive's commitment, endorsed by the Assembly, to transfer planning powers to councils. The amendments are contrary to the principles underlying the devolution of planning powers from central to local government, and that concerns me greatly.

When Arlene Foster made her statement to the Assembly on local government reform on 31 March 2008, she said:

"our vision is of a strong, dynamic local government that creates vibrant, healthy, prosperous, safe and sustainable communities that have the needs of all citizens at their core." — [Official Report, Bound Volume 29, p2, col 1].

She also said:

"Successful local councils must be effective local champions that respond to the aspirations and concerns of their communities and guide — in partnership with others — the future development of their area. Strong civic leadership must be at the heart of the new council arrangements." — [Official Report, Bound Volume 29, p2, col 1].

In addition, when Edwin Poots moved the Second Stage of what is now the Planning Act 2011 in December 2010, he said:

"The Planning Bill sets out proposals to transform our planning system. It provides for a transfer of better, faster development plans and development management functions to councils. That means that the councils will be the planning authorities." — [Official Report, Bound Volume 59, p112, col 2].

He continued:

"The transformation is fundamental to the development of local accountable democracy. It puts power and responsibility for the development of local areas exactly where it should be: in the hands of locally elected representatives accountable to the people." — [Official Report, Bound Volume 59, p112, col 2].

The ESPZ amendment runs counter to that vision. It disempowers local councils, allowing OFMDFM to dictate what it thinks is best for local communities and what development can go ahead in a council's area without any form of recourse. As Members will appreciate, I have grave reservations for legal, procedural and evidential reasons about the amendments to the Planning Bill to do with ESPZs and the restriction of the right to judicial review. Therefore, after very careful and lengthy consideration, I have decided not to move the Planning Bill to Further Consideration Stage either now or in the future.

I intend to continue to make prompt and sound planning decisions through the development of a single strategic planning policy statement to create a planning system that is fast, fair and fit for purpose — one that delivers for business, but not at the expense of our planet or our people. As Environment Minister, I want to help to create a better environment and a stronger economy. Regrettably, the Bill, as it stands, does neither.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his very comprehensive statement, which I very much welcome. I congratulate and commend the Minister on his courage to stand up to others who want amendments to take away civil liberties and the rights of citizens to bring judicial reviews. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member has the Floor.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

However, the —

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, to be clear, is the Member speaking as Chairman of the Committee or is she speaking as an individual MLA?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I am sure that the Member will make it absolutely clear whether she is speaking as Chair of the Committee or as a Member of this House.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I am speaking as the Chair of the Committee. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member was called as Chair of the Committee. Allow the Member to continue.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. During the scrutiny of the Bill, the Committee received —

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The convention is that no points of order are taken during a ministerial statement. I made that clear to the House during the statement from the Minister of Education. I am happy to take points of order after questions on the statement are concluded. Allow the Member to continue.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you for that clarification, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

It would be useful to the House if the Member were to state clearly that she is speaking on behalf of the Committee — again, for Members.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I am speaking as the Chair of the Committee, and if I may finish my sentence — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the Member to continue.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

The Committee took a long time to scrutinise the Bill. Although it is quite a short Bill, we received an extremely large number of responses from the public and stakeholders. Many of them expressed grave concerns about the amendments, as did the Minister, and about the new provisions in the Bill. As Chair of the Committee, I received a large number of e-mails and other correspondence after Consideration Stage about the two new amendments. I was extremely concerned about the lack of public consultation on the two amendments that were proposed at Consideration Stage. As Chair of the Environment Committee, I have the right to say that I have reservations about two amendments not being subject to enough public consultation.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I am hesitant to intervene. I am listening to the Member very carefully. Is the Member asking a question on behalf of the Committee or is she asking a question as a private Member?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I will ask a question as Committee Chair. Obviously, the Planning Bill is meant to bring forward a number of aspects of the Planning Act 2011, and, largely, the Committee supports the Planning Bill. Now that the Minister is withdrawing the Bill, what about the other elements in it? Clause 5 is about pre-application consultation with the community. Clauses 7 and 8 are about the power of the Department to deal with repeated applications. Clause 9 is about the power of the Department to require developers to reinstate land that has been used for mineral extraction.

Clause 17 promotes the positive management and enhancement of conservation areas, and clause 20 — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Is a question due?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member is coming to her question.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

How will the Department deal with all those elements? The idea was to bring forward those elements so that they are embedded in our planning structure before the new councils take over planning powers.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Chairperson of the Environment Committee for her question and for her warm welcome to my statement, which is not how I expect it to go down in all quarters today.

I am fully committed to the reform and improvement of the planning system. I am determined to incorporate the elements that you outlined in the original Planning Bill into the planning system through the continued development of the single strategic planning policy statement. I am determined to work with all sectors to ensure that the planning system that we get in place for transfer to local councils is as close to perfect as it can be.

I am aware that Ms Lo and others proposed an amendment at Consideration Stage to introduce a duty on the Department, in exercising its functions, to do so having regard to the desirability of promoting the shared use of the public realm between persons of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group. My predecessor gave a commitment at that time that, although the amendment was not made, he would try to incorporate it. I reaffirm that commitment; it is important that we do so.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thank you, Ms Brown. I am sorry to disappoint you. That is a bit rich, when we look at the lack of consultation on the amendments [Interruption.] that have made the Bill the toxic legislation that it now is. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The amendments derailed the attempt to fast-forward the transformation and improvement of the planning system here. No, I did not raise this with Executive colleagues. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thought long and hard about my decision, which I arrived at over the weekend. However, to be accused of being anti-democratic is a bit rich, when the amendments were not subject to consultation with the Executive, the Environment Committee or even — as far as I am aware — the parties whose members tabled the amendments.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a ráitis. I thank the Minister for his statement. I put it on record that I believe that the amendments are compliant with EU obligations. I do not think that any Member of the Assembly would try to subvert or avoid EU obligations. Has the Minister sought or received any legal advice from the Attorney General on the matter? Will he confirm whether it is consistent with any legal advice that he received from others?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Uasal Ó Baoighealláin as a cheist. I have not sought advice from the Attorney General, and nor have I received advice from the Attorney General. I received legal advice from an eminent QC in the field, which I have shared with the House and is available to the public. I have not heard any legal opinion that is contrary to that advice. Over the past four months, I spoke to many lawyers, academics and planning experts and received no advice whatsoever that the advice read into the record by my predecessor at Consideration Stage was erroneous or in any way challengeable.

Fearghal McKinney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister and welcome this important statement. The Minister outlined and placed on record the clear legal advice that his Department received in respect of the illegalities of the DUP and Sinn Féin amendments. Has he been shown OFMDFM's legal advice? Who provided that advice?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The short answers to those questions are: no and I don't know. As I pointed out, I shared the advice obtained by my predecessor. He read it into the record. I have not seen any legal advice received by OFMDFM or whoever brought the amendments, although, in an interview on radio last week, Mr Weir alluded to the fact that it was OFMDFM, but I have not seen that legal advice.

My door has been open for four months. People knew the legal position, as stated by my predecessor. My door has been open to seeing any legal advice to the contrary. I have not seen it. My door remains open to that legal advice coming forward. I am keen to work with anyone and everyone to ensure that we — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

— get this sorted and ensure that we have a planning system that is fair, fit for purpose and fast.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I welcome the Minister's statement, which leaves me in no doubt that the proposed power grab by OFMDFM with regard to economic planning was so ill-conceived, so badly thought through and so arrogant that it was actually illegal? [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Will the Minister confirm to the House that he will stand firm in continuing to offer responsible leadership, because, no doubt, he will come under various pressures to change his mind?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Member used the term "power grab". That is not a term that I intend to use today. This statement is about planning; it is not about politics. I will stand firm to ensure that the planning system in Northern Ireland is fair and legal.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I too am disappointed at the Minister's statement. He seems to have based a lot of it on legal advice. In answer to a previous question, he said that he had not consulted the Attorney General, who is the senior legal adviser to the Executive. Why did he not consult the Attorney General?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thank you, Mr Weir. I had to make a judgement on the Bill in the best interests of the planning system, based on the evidence in front of me. I am not prepared to derogate from that responsibility or leave it to others. I want to look at the big picture, not just this Bill, but how it relates to the wider local government reform programme and the transfer of planning powers to councils.

The Bill is not good law, and I have yet to hear anyone, even today, try to claim that it is. It is not good for the planning system, and it is not good for the economy. That is what the business representatives that I have been speaking to are telling me as well. In fact, it would be counterproductive, by creating confusion. There are NGOs and groups queuing up to challenge the Bill legally, if it were to pass as it stands. How is that going to make things faster? How is that going to create more certainty in the system? How is that going to promote inward investment, help development and create jobs? It is not.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I think it is most significant that the Minister did not think it worth his while to consult the Attorney General, but, in his statement today, he was careful to quote what Justice Treacy had to say. Alas, however, he did not say everything that Justice Treacy said. May I remind him? This decision was taken subsequent to the Treacy ruling, which indicated that a Minister who failed to bring a controversial decision to the full Executive was in breach of the ministerial code. Why, then, is the Minister defying that ruling today and deliberately breaking that ministerial code?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I dispute that I am breaking the ministerial code. I wonder whether advice was sought from the Attorney General on the amendments before they were tabled. If not, why not? If so — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Minister must be heard.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

If so, why? When the public hear the accusation that I might be breaking the ministerial code, they will rightly ask, "What is the ministerial code?" If someone is deemed — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

If someone is deemed not to be in breach of the code for denying someone else the right to donate blood based on their sexuality or for promoting public disorder, they are not in breach of the code but for trying to prevent bad law from coming in, I am?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I do not think so. I can act only on the legal advice that I have seen. I am certainly open to hearing other legal advice, and I have sought it from many places, but that is not one.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Fáiltím roimh chinneadh an Aire gan dul ar aghaidh leis an Bhille seo faoi mar atá sé leasaithe. Go deimhin, chuir mé spéis sa mhéid a dúirt an tAire faoi na limistéir phleana, agus ba mhaith liom ceist a chur air ina dtaobh. Does the Minister agree that the amendment on economically significant planning zones (ESPZ) was, in fact, a spurious proposal, given that the power already existed under the provision for simplified planning zones in the 1991 Planning Order?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat as an cheist shuimiúil sin. I tried to get it in Irish, but I did not know the word "spurious".

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

He will understand it.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I do not understand it in English. In the absence of any detail and information on what will constitute an ESPZ and the type of applications that will qualify, there can be no guarantees, assurances or clarity about how the provisions will help the economy. No one has established the benefits or costs of the proposals, who they will benefit or who they will harm. In fact, in my opinion, the clauses are largely replicated from the simplified planning zones but without the safeguards that existed in those zones for areas of special scientific interest and habitats. That is why I do not see any merit in the amendment and why I am happy to speak to anyone about dusting down the provisions from the 1991 Planning Order to see how we can make those best work in a way that will deliver for the economy while protecting the environment.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

What a shambles, Mr Speaker. I congratulate the Minister on his solo run and for having the courage to stand up to this Administration. Does he agree with me that the attempted power grab effectively amounts to the Government scuppering their own Bill? Does that not highlight the dysfunctionality of this Administration?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr McCallister for welcoming my statement. However, let me assure you, Mr McCallister, that this is not a solo run. This is supported, and it will be supported, by many in the House and by many more outside the House. I do not want to go down the lines of a power grab. In response to an earlier question, I said that I believe that the Bill, which is a noble attempt to improve the planning system, has been derailed by these amendments.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Given that, in the past, the Minister has described the use of a petition of concern as putting up two fingers to other parties, can the Minister not see the hypocrisy in his statement today? How many fingers is he putting up to other parties?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Sorry, Mr Speaker, I am just trying to count my fingers. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I recall my description of the abuse of a petition of concern as such, not the use of a petition of concern. It was abuse of a petition of concern — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

— when it was able to be used by one party to thwart the wishes of other parties in the Assembly. As it stands, the majority of parties in the Assembly will be behind me. They will give my statement the thumbs up and not the fingers.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

The Minister made much of the perceived limit on judicial reviews and said that it would restrict the rights of citizens. I am quite sure that the Minister is aware of the Inquiry into Historical Institutional Abuse Act that was passed by the Assembly. Section 19 of said Act limits a judicial review to 14 days. If that Act is legally competent, why does he believe that the amendments proposed to the Planning Bill would not be?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I have quoted legal advice that I received. I can go back and get legal advice on Mr Ross's question, and I will endeavour to do so. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Let us look at the issues. There are European Charter issues — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Minister has the Floor. If a Member asks a question, the Minister must then be heard. Order.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The restrictions on judicial reviews or the right to judicial review in the amendment are in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights. That is the legal advice that I received. That has also been reaffirmed to me by the Human Rights Commission.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

As a former member of the Environment Committee, I was fortunate to benefit from some knowledge and experience of the Scottish planning system. Does the Minister believe that, by modernising and updating our legislation, it is possible to build a much more responsive local government-based planning system in Northern Ireland that can meet the needs of industry without trampling on the individual rights of citizens?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I fully believe that that is possible. The Planning Service has been working towards that, and it is something that I aspire to.

The Member pointed to how well planning is working in another jurisdiction. Let me be quite clear: planning is working well here. It is working a lot better here than it was. The past two years have seen dramatic improvements in the processing and approval of applications. I aim to continue that trend, and I hope to have the support of all Members in doing so.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I have listened to the Minister today, and he has said on a few occasions that he is happy to speak to anyone. Given the concerns that his Department has about the Bill and the amendments proposed at Consideration Stage, what discussions have taken place with those who tabled the amendments or with any other Department?

In one of the last paragraphs of his statement, the Minister talks about "prompt and sound planning decisions". You referred to article 31 applications, of which the previous Minister had 71. It is almost as if your position today was a prerequisite for you getting the post after he cleared his desk. In one of those applications, on which you suggest there was a prompt decision taken, there were 4,500 objections to a business that no longer existed. Was that a good decision made by the Planning Service?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thank you, Mr Clarke. I am not sure to which article 31 decision the Member is referring. I wonder whether it is one that my predecessor inherited from his predecessor. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. What guarantees were provided by the proposers of the new clause — now clause 4 — that the proposed establishment of economically simplified planning zones was not a recipe for a free-for-all for frackers?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thank you, Mr McGlone. Go raibh maith agat. As I stated earlier, I have received no details, guarantees or information about what will constitute an ESPZ and what applications will qualify for that status. In the absence of any details, nothing, including fracking, in my opinion, could be ruled in or out, especially in light of comments by colleagues from across the Chamber about the economic significance of fracking.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I am disappointed by the Minister's statement. If the Minister has concerns about some clauses of the Bill, and the supposed illegality of those, why has he decided to end it now? Why not go through the process, keeping the Bill as it is, and seek legal advice on those clauses?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr Frew for his question. I did not want to waste more time on this Bill, or have the House or my officials waste time on it. My officials are drawing up subordinate legislation for the transfer of planning powers to councils, in accordance with the 2011 Act. Had the Bill received passage, they would have had to do the same. That would have been a duplication of work, and I was not prepared to allow that to happen.

Furthermore, as I outlined earlier, had the Bill been approved by the House, I have no doubt that it would have been subject to legal challenge by people from outside the House, and possibly by some within it. That would have led to a complete slowdown of the planning system, which is entirely contrary to the original aim of the Bill.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I welcome the Minister's statement on behalf of the Green Party and many others outside the House. The Minister has made a sound, rational and, ultimately, correct decision. This House, as a legislature, has to act responsibly and within the law. Will the Minister confirm that it is the duty of all Ministers and Members to act within the law, legislate within existing laws, and not seek to circumvent the law to pursue a personal agenda?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Earlier, a question was put to me, and a question mark put over my adherence to the ministerial code. As an elected politician, a Minister and a person, I do not believe that anyone should break the law. My actions are not in breach of any code. Although it is important that our decisions are legal, it is most important that they benefit the people we represent. The Bill, as amended, was not.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Minister, I have listened with interest to everything that you said about all this legal advice and, in some cases, the lack of it. You also mentioned that you had consulted businesses about this. I ask a very serious question: which businesses did you consult? Was one of them John Lewis? You have rhymed on and on about this wonderful planning system, but that application spent 10 years in the planning process and, ultimately, it did not happen. Did you consult John Lewis? What measures will you take to improve the situation? There is nothing in the existing planning process that would prevent a repeat of that fiasco.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

No is the simple answer to that question; I did not consult John Lewis. Perhaps previous Environment Ministers consulted more with business than I do. However, in line with my predecessor's announcement, which accompanied the release of my Department's decision on the parts of the Belfast metropolitan area plan (BMAP) relevant to Sprucefield, I consider it appropriate to adopt a precautionary approach to major out-of-town retailing.

When we debate the future of town and city centres, I hear about the need to support town centres from all sides of the House, yet it seems that different rules apply when it comes to John Lewis. Currently, there is no application from John Lewis. If another one comes in, it will be looked at and be subject to the full rigours of the planning process.

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

Is the Minister not just being a bit polite and gentle? [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

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

Does the Minister agree that the amendments were crude, ill thought out and totally inappropriate and, quite simply, were made without any consultation with the public, the Assembly, the Executive or even with the First Minister or the deputy First Minister's parties? Does he agree that they were tantamount to a blatant power grab by OFMDFM with no respect for anybody? [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Dr McDonnell for his question.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

In response to questions from around the House today, I said that I do not want to get into finger pointing — or finger raising, Mr McCrea — about the intention behind the amendments. Others see it quite clearly as a power grab. I am not too concerned about my Department losing power, but the amendments would disempower local councils in future. That is not right, given that, two weeks ago, we voted to empower them.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

Given the considerable debate that we had yesterday on economic development and the need for more foreign direct investment, what sort of negative message does this decision send out to potential investors who are looking at coming to Northern Ireland?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr Dunne for his question. I do not think that the decision sends out a negative message. It is important that we send out no negative messages. I outlined the steps that my Department has taken and the decisions that I have made to promote economic development. I outlined my concerns that the ESPZs will do nothing to speed up inward investment. Subject to a legal challenge, they will create only uncertainty. Any inward investor will look for certainty as well as swiftness from the planning system; certainty is even more important.

I want to get a message out today. I want anyone who is listening to the debate to be in no doubt that I support a stronger economy. It is vital that the message goes out that Northern Ireland is open for business and is good for business. I want to make sure that that is reflected in the planning system.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I am also disappointed by the Minister's statement. If there were concerns about legal competence, why did he not follow normal procedure and seek to have the relevant clauses referred to the Supreme Court for a ruling and leave the rest of the Bill intact?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I spoke about the intention behind the Bill, which was to road-test the new planning powers that will be transferred to local councils in 2015. The fact is that, during the four months that have elapsed since the Bill's Consideration Stage, we are running out of road. The longer this goes on, the less point there is in bringing the Bill forward. Neither OFMDFM nor whoever tabled the amendments have been knocking down my door to ask me to bring the Bill to the Assembly.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I welcome the Minister's statement. I want to congratulate him; it is good to see a young, fresh planning Minister who can make decisions for Strangford and Newtownards. I very much welcome that. Will the Minister give us — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member must be heard.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

We waited for a long time for the Newtownards development. Thank you. Minister.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I encourage the Member to come to his question.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Yes, Mr Speaker. Will the Minister give us a timescale for the introduction of the strategic planning policy? Will it be made before the new councils come into being?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I fully intend that the single strategic planning policy statement will be ready in draft form by the turn of the year. It will then go out for public consultation.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

Like many other Members, I express concern about the Minister's statement. Despite the fact that he has assured us that he is open for business and that he was "running out of road" as he put it, I think that many in Northern Ireland with an interest in the economy will be somewhat concerned about his reasons for the decision. Quite specifically, what consultations took place on the options for dealing with his concerns through amendments at Further Consideration Stage?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Forgive me, Mr Speaker. Let me use my relative newness in the job as an excuse, but I do not believe that the capacity exists to amend amendments.

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

I congratulate the Minister on strong, decisive and good government, unlike so much that passes for government around this place. Given that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister produced these amendments, never shared their legal advice on the amendments, never brought them to the Executive, the Environment Committee or asked any citizens or groups in this part of the world for their view on those amendments, does the Minister agree that, far from him failing in his duties as a Minister, people should look elsewhere for ministerial failure, in particular to the Office of the First and deputy First Minister and the role —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to finish.

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

— of the First Minister.

Given that the gaping hole in all of this is the failure of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to share their legal advice, despite the torrent of legal advice against their view —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I now must insist.

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

— does that not reveal how weak, shallow —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member must finish.

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

— and short-sighted this has been?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thank you, Mr Speaker and thank you, Mr Attwood. It is not often that I disagree with Mr Attwood, so I will not start now.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. That concludes questions to the Minister on his statement.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

On a point of order. Mr Speaker. A very serious situation arose during this item of business. I would like you to investigate the behaviour of the Chair of the Environment Committee. Her behaviour was an absolute abuse of her position as Chair of the Committee. Having been asked on a number of occasions whether she was speaking as the Chair of the Committee, she made it clear that she was. The inference, of course, was that she was speaking on behalf of the Committee and was articulating its views.

This obviously cannot go on. It was a blatant attempt to walk around the rules and the Standing Orders of the House. It has to stop and the Member's behaviour today has to be investigated. Will you assure the House that her behaviour today will be investigated?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Lord Morrow's point of order raises a number of issues. First, Chairs of Committees come to the House and indicate clearly to the Table that they want to be called as Chairs. I have always said to Chairs of Committees that they should ask questions on behalf of the Committee and should not make statements. Secondly, this is really an issue for the Committee to deal with and not the House. I think that it is important that I say that to Lord Morrow.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is on a separate issue. Mr Speaker, I wonder whether you will also check Hansard to see whether the Minister was misleading the House. In an answer he gave a few moments ago, he indicated that neither OFMDFM nor the proposers of the amendments were knocking down his door to move the amendments forward. It is a matter of public record that I, as one of the movers of the amendments, asked a question for written answer of the Department in September about when he would table the Further Consideration Stage and got an answer.

I ask whether you could look at that, and I also ask that the Minister withdraw the accusations against the Members who moved the amendments.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I listened to the Member's point of order, and he needs to be careful about accusing the Minister of misleading the House.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I am asking whether he has.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Yes, but we can leave the terminology aside. However, I am happy to look at Hansard and to come back to the Member or to the House.

The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately after the lunchtime suspension. I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm, when the first item of business when the House returns will be Question Time.

The sitting was suspended at 12.31 pm.

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

Oral Answers to Questions

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

1. asked the Minister for Social Development for an update on the affordable warmth pilot scheme. (AQT 261/11-15)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for the question. The warm homes scheme is our main fuel poverty scheme. That is targeted at privately owned and privately rented low-income households to improve their energy efficiency to tackle fuel poverty.

The initial target was to install energy-efficiency improvements in 9,000 homes. We have met that target year on year since 2009. The warm homes scheme contract is due to end in June 2014, so I have asked officials to review the scheme to see how we are tackling fuel poverty, taking into account current research that shows that over 33,000 households need to spend a quarter of their income on heating.

We recently completed an achievable, affordable warmth area-based pilot scheme in partnership with the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM), the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD), the University of Ulster, the Housing Executive and 19 of the 26 local authorities. The aim of that approach was to deliver energy-efficiency improvements for homes in small, concentrated areas of fuel poverty, and to identify areas of poor housing and low income where you have that high prevalence.

The university evaluation of the pilot estimates that one in two of households contacted proved to be eligible for assistance from the warm homes scheme. A lot of the work was done in cooperation with Professor Christine Liddell of the University of Ulster, and it directed us towards area-based work, which seems to be much more productive in comparison with how things were being done.

From the initial positive results, we have moved to phase 2 of the pilot, which is to test that energy-efficiency measures can be delivered using local installers to carry out the work. That is encouraging and a good way in which to tackle fuel poverty.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware that the Department of Health, in partnership with the Public Health Agency, ran a scheme to issue Keep Warm packs, which was a low-level, low-tech way of tackling fuel poverty. Does the Minister see merit in his Department considering a low-tech option to help those struggling to heat their home this winter?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I am aware that the Public Health Agency in Northern Ireland provided some low-income households with Keep Warm packs in recent years. As you indicated, they were very popular. I believe that the Public Health Agency was able to identify funding for 2,500 to 3,000 Keep Warm packs for the scheme this year. The scheme is much appreciated and is effective.

I welcome that initiative. It is a good example of working in partnership with others to tackle fuel poverty. We recognise that fuel poverty is a priority. It is a key issue that needs to be addressed in a cross-departmental way, because the factors that create fuel poverty impact on the work of different Departments.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

2. asked the Minister for Social Development to confirm when discussions, involving the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Finance Minister, on a welfare reform package of mitigating measures for Northern Ireland concluded. (AQT 262/11-15)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

This has been a major area of work for me and the Department over the past year. There were detailed, lengthy and intense discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) at Westminster. The Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) also has an engagement with the Treasury in that regard. At the end of June, we got to the point where we had had the negotiation with Westminster and the internal discussions with the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. We also had discussions with the Finance Minister, and, at the end of June, we reached the point where we had a package of measures that, if implemented, would result in a much better situation for Northern Ireland than us simply taking welfare reform as it is in GB. They address the worst aspects of welfare reform whilst retaining the elements of it that are positive. That work concluded at the end of June.