Northern Ireland Assembly, 5 November 2013

536 contributions from 65 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it not a comment on the relevance of this House that, today, after last night's devastating programme on the disappeared —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— there is no opportunity to raise the matter —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— even as —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— a Matter of the Day?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Is that not a shameful dereliction in this House?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I ask the Member to take his seat or leave the Chamber. The Member knows quite well that he is totally out of order. Well he knows that. It is not — [Interruption.] Order. It is not in order to question such decisions. I will leave it there.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

The petition to save Exploris contains the signatures of over 11,000 people from all walks of life who have one thing in common, which is their demand that the Assembly and different Departments provide regional funding and work with officers in Ards Borough Council to draw up a plan and a vision to enable Exploris to continue to operate in Portaferry as the Northern Ireland aquarium.

Exploris is one the top 10 tourist attractions in Northern Ireland. It is sited in Portaferry on the edge of Strangford lough and has been in existence since 1987. At its height, it was capable of attracting over 100,000 visitors per annum. The aquarium has a fantastic array of local fish, and Exploris takes visitors below the lough to experience the habitat and existence of a wide variety of marine life. In addition, of course, we have the famous seal sanctuary. The 100,000 visitors contribute to the economy, not only of Portaferry but of every small village in the Ards peninsula. They use the Strangford ferry and contribute to the economy of the village of Strangford and beyond.

Exploris is a world aquatic site in Northern Ireland. Our appeal this morning is to do what is necessary to save Exploris. Mr Speaker, I will also hand you an A3 page containing the signatures of a dozen local schoolchildren who are desperate to save their fish and their seals. Let the Assembly listen to the cry of those dozen children and the 11,000 adults who have signed the petition and prove that we are a listening Assembly that can rise to the challenge and save Exploris.

Mr McCarthy moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I will forward the petition to the Minister of the Environment and send a copy to the Chair of the Committee for the Environment, Anna Lo.

Ministerial Statement

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I wish to make the following statement on the independent inquiry into child sexual exploitation (CSE) in Northern Ireland.

In my written ministerial statement of 25 September 2013, I indicated that, following the appointment of the independent chair to the inquiry and agreement of the terms of reference, I would make a further statement on the independent inquiry and the thematic review by the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland (SBNI). I advise the House that I have appointed Professor Kathleen Marshall to lead the inquiry into child sexual exploitation. Professor Marshall has a long and distinguished career as a practising and academic lawyer. She is a former Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland. She was part of the team that undertook the youth justice review in Northern Ireland, which reported in 2011. She also chaired a statutory inquiry into child abuse in children’s homes in Edinburgh, which resulted in a published report.

Professor Marshall will lead an inquiry board, which will include the chief executives of the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) and Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI). I am also confident that we will secure the involvement of the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) with the agreement of Minister O’Dowd. The board will be supported by an inquiry team, which will include individuals with experience and knowledge of child protection.

The methodology will be a matter for the chair to decide. However, I understand that it is intended to hold an initial summit this month. I also understand that it is intended that calls for evidence will be made and that key stakeholders will be involved throughout the process of the inquiry. I have emphasised the need to ensure that the views of children and young people are considered and given due weight. I met Professor Marshall yesterday. Among other things, we discussed and agreed the terms of reference for the inquiry.

As agreed with Professor Marshall, the inquiry will seek to establish the nature of child sexual exploitation in Northern Ireland and a measure of the extent to which it occurs; examine the effectiveness of current cross-sectoral child safeguarding and protection arrangements and measures to prevent and tackle child sexual exploitation; make recommendations on the future actions required to prevent and tackle child sexual exploitation and on who should be responsible for those actions; and report the findings of the inquiry to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Minister of Justice and, with his agreement, the Minister of Education within one year of the commencement of the inquiry. In addition, I have agreed that the inquiry should consider specific safeguarding and protection issues for looked-after children, taking into account the SBNI's ongoing thematic review; seek the views of children and young people in Northern Ireland and those of other key stakeholders; and engage with parents to identify the issues that they face and seek their views on what needs to be done to help them keep their children safe from the risk of CSE.

The inquiry will not focus on the circumstances and/or responses to the 22 children who are part of the ongoing police investigation known as Operation Owl. That will be the focus of the separate thematic review that is being undertaken by the SBNI. However, available learning that is generated from that review will be taken into account by the inquiry. The terms of reference reflect that this is a wider societal issue affecting children in a variety of circumstances, not just those in the care system.

I expect the inquiry to conclude and report before the end of 2014. Where learning is identified by the inquiry, it is essential that it be shared and acted on quickly. I want to ensure that, as far as possible, we prevent further sexual exploitation of children and young people in Northern Ireland. I also want to ensure that our child safeguarding systems are sufficiently robust across all sectors. In particular, it is essential that those who are responsible for exploiting children in that way face the full rigours of the law.

I have agreed with the inquiry chair that information will be made available at appropriate junctures; for example, at the end of the call for evidence strand of the inquiry and when the inquiry board and team have analysed evidence that has been provided. An inquiry website will be established to facilitate the sharing of information throughout the process. Of course, any evidence that emerges throughout the process that indicates that immediate action is needed to protect children in the here and now will be made available to the appropriate authorities, that is, the police and/or social services.

Members are aware that the SBNI is being directed to conduct a thematic review into the 22 cases that triggered the ongoing police investigation. As I am required to in law, I have consulted the SBNI on the terms of the direction. Consultation is ongoing, and I hope to be in a position to report further to the House on the terms of reference for the review in the near future. The SBNI review is a complex piece of work in the sense that it interfaces directly with an ongoing police investigation. So, we need to be assured that the risk of interference with that investigation is kept to an absolute minimum. That is the ongoing discussion with the SBNI.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome the appointment to what is a critical piece of work into safeguarding our children and young people. The Minister will be aware that the Committee has written to the Department three times in the past six weeks asking for sight of the terms of reference in advance of it coming to the House. Therefore, why has the Minister chosen to simply ignore that offer of assistance and has, effectively, undermined the Committee's scrutiny role? Will the inquiry have powers to address the failures in the system that have been identified throughout the process? What powers will be in place to deal with that?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

First, we agreed the terms of reference last night with Kathleen Marshall, who is going to head up the inquiry. The terms of reference were then agreed with the Justice Minister, and they have also been sent to the Education Minister. If the Committee wants to draw the process out, elongate the process and slow down the inquiry's actually starting, I could have started engaging with it on that basis. However, in that respect, I think that there has been adequate opportunity for key people to be involved in identifying the terms of reference for the inquiry. As the Committee looks at the terms of reference, I think that it will see that it is a process that is inclusive, a process that will involve the Committee at appropriate stages, and a process that all Committee members can participate in in a very fulsome way. This is not a process about exclusion. I want it to get started. I would have liked to have started it quicker, and I do not want further delay. So, without being disrespectful to the Committee, that is my line of thinking. I think that it is important that we get the process under way and that the work is done and that, if there are failings and weaknesses, they are identified at an early point so that we can seek to close those gaps.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

I, too, welcome the Minister's statement. Will the Minister advise us who will be on the inquiry team that is to be established?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The inquiry team will include experts in the field of child safeguarding and protection, as well as professionals from each of the three organisations that are involved in the inquiry, that is, the RQIA, the CJINI and ETI. Other experts and professionals may be co-opted and brought on for support when required. That will be in the hands of the inquiry team, led by Kathleen Marshall and those support organisations, to facilitate.

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

The SDLP would also have liked to have seen the terms of reference presented at the Committee. We welcome the inquiry and the appointment. Given the way that it is designed, in thematic form and inquiry, will the Minister assure the House that we will not end up with simply a narrative about the nature of child sexual exploitation, as opposed to a robust inquiry drilling down into accountability?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is important to identify the fact that there are two different inquiries on two different streams. The Safeguarding Board will carry out a thematic inquiry that will focus on the 22 cases that were reported and that the police are investigating. So, you have a police investigation, and running alongside that you have the Safeguarding Board's inquiry. That will be very important in order to see where particular weaknesses can be identified in those cases. The inquiry that we are conducting will be more policy-driven, and, therefore, we need to look at how policies are implemented on the ground and see where those changes need to be made. Two different and separate inquiries are taking place. It is important that there is no considerable overlap and that each inquiry covers all the relevant issues that are of concern to Members and ensures that we have better safeguarding procedures in future.

As to the results of the inquiry, I am not sure whether our failings are significant. I do not think that we should prejudge it. However, one way or another, 22 children have been the subject of sexual exploitation. Even if many of them have been willing participants, we need to do more to protect them. It is important that we try to get to all these issues and discuss this in a very open and honest way in an honest framework to ensure that those who have an opportunity and need to say something about it will have a chance to do so.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I, too, thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the appointment of the chair. In his original statement, the Minister announced, just like today, the close involvement of the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority and Criminal Justice Inspection. He also expressed an aspiration that the Education and Training Inspectorate would be involved. How have you engaged with the Department of Education and the Minister, and why are they not yet on board?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

My officials and I have engaged with both Departments. We have been in regular correspondence on the issues, so a course of work has happened. Justice was able to come on board with the issue, and I think that Education will come on board. I honestly do not believe that Education can sit outside the process. We are looking at a situation where around 20% of children who are being exploited are in the looked-after sector, but 80% are not. Where are those 80%? Most, if not all of them, will or should be in the education system. Can Education afford to sit outside the process? I do not think so.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

The Alliance Party also welcomes the announcement this morning and the appointment of Professor Kathleen Marshall. Does the Minister agree that we should examine past practices while we await the outcome of the review? What assurances can the Minister give on measures being taken now to ensure the protection of vulnerable young people in care?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is absolutely essential that children and young people are involved and that their voices are heard. We know that many of these young people are very vulnerable. The inquiry will give early consideration to the most effective and, indeed, ethical ways of involving children and young people in its work and gaining their perspective on the issues. I have discussed this with the chair, and she is fully committed to a meaningful engagement with children and young people. She has experience of that, having been Commissioner for Children and Young People. It is intended that some engagement will also take place through our schools.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I, too, thank the Minister for his statement. In your statement, Minister, you talked about the ongoing police investigation known as Operation Owl and said that it will be the focus of a separate thematic review by the Safeguarding Board. You referred to 22 children. Can you confirm that only 22 children are involved in that operation, or are more likely to become involved?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

As far as I am aware, that is the figure; that is what has been presented to me. I do not know whether there will be any change to that, but I do not think it is appropriate for me to speculate. What I do know is that there are evil, wicked people out there. There are predators out there, and predators always look for the vulnerable. Children who are looked after are amongst our most vulnerable. We need to recognise that. We also need to recognise that a lot of people have a responsibility to those young people, so, if they see things that perhaps should not be happening, they should report it, and, if they see things that could go wrong, they should seek to use the appropriate interventions through the appropriate authorities. It is incredibly important that we all recognise that vulnerable young people — vulnerable people in general — need to be protected, as far as possible, from predators. We all have some work to do on that front.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I, too, thank the Minister and welcome his statement on a most sensitive issue of great concern to the public. If, as a result of the inquiry, major non-conformances are found that highlight system failures, what actions will the Minister take?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

If system failings or concerns about any agency's actions or, indeed, inactions are identified, they will be referred to the relevant organisation's senior management. The appropriate governance and accountability arrangements will then be enacted. Concerns may also need to be referred to the Safeguarding Board so that it has the opportunity, through its member organisations, to cascade learning appropriately on a wider scale. I should say that that may apply not just to major failings; it may apply to minor failings as well, because a series of minor failings can often lead to major consequences.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra agus as an fhógra go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his announcement. I go back to a point that Mr McCarthy touched on earlier: will the Minister expand on what specific measures his Department has taken in its areas of responsibility to ensure that the abuse alleged in those 22 cases does not happen again?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

A number of measures were taken on the back of the Barnardo's report of 2011, including the establishment of the Safeguarding Board. A series of measures were taken in line with six recommendations, one of which was for the police, and five of which were for my Department. All those measures have been acted on. Most have been implemented in full, and some are being completed. Members should take some comfort from the fact that one key area that we have implemented is the close liaison and the embedment between the police and social services, which is absolutely essential. I know that many parts of GB will look on quite enviously at the close cooperation between those organisations in Northern Ireland. Much has been done, but do I think that more could be done? I will be very surprised if we do not identify areas of weakness, vulnerabilities and gaps that we can close to provide greater support to these young people.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he give a commitment that the inquiry will focus on ensuring the safety of children through critiquing current practice as opposed to simply apportioning blame?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

This inquiry is about a critique of practice; the Safeguarding Board will be more associated with the 22 cases and that course of work. This inquiry is more policy-focused. When people fail, blame often has to be applied. However, the inquiry has not necessarily come about because of a series of individual failures; it is more down to a series of very challenging circumstances. People often believe that they are doing the right thing, but it may not necessarily be the right thing. The inquiry will focus strongly on policy and on identifying what more could be done. It will look at interpretation of the law and ensure that staff interpret the law appropriately so that too much weight is not given to one aspect of the law to the detriment of young people. I assure the House that all those things will be looked at.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for the statement and welcome it. This is a grave issue, and it is important that there is full and proper public scrutiny. In light of that, what steps does the Minister intend to take to ensure that the House is kept informed of progress?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I will make regular statements to the House on the progress of the inquiry and the review in so far as my doing so will not compromise the integrity of the process. Members will appreciate that I want to be fully advised by the respective chairs on an ongoing basis, and I expect that I will receive topical and listed questions from Members because the issue is of importance to the public. It may not affect a large number of people, but, nonetheless, the effects on the relatively small number need to be felt by all of us, and all of us must ensure that we do as much as we can to make sure that it does not happen as regularly as it has in the past. I do not believe that we can entirely eliminate it, but we need to do everything that we can to mitigate the circumstances of vulnerable young people and to ensure that predators do not find easy access to them.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Health Minister and the Justice Minister have made it clear that any form of child abuse should be reported to the appropriate authorities immediately. Given that, how concerned is the Minister that, yesterday, the deputy First Minister compromised that message by defending Gerry Adams, who clearly failed to report the abuse of his niece to the appropriate authorities? Furthermore, what steps can be taken to educate not only politicians but parents and the public about the risks associated with child sexual exploitation?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I was somewhat struck yesterday by the views expressed by the recently retired Director of Public Prosecutions in GB, who indicated that those who fail to report child abuse should be prosecuted for such activity and that the law should allow that. We should all reflect on that. It is wrong for people not to report child abuse. It is one of the most obscene things that anyone can do, and those who have failed to report it have to live with their conscience. I also think that the PSNI and the Public Prosecution Service need to ensure that nobody is above the law, otherwise the law is diminished in the eyes of the people.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement, and, along with my colleagues, I welcome it. The appointment of Professor Marshall is indeed a wise appointment, given that she was a former Children's Commissioner, a member of the youth justice review in Northern Ireland and led an inquiry into sexual abuse in Edinburgh in Scotland. Given that and the timetable that the Minister has laid down, is there not a greater urgency to get a report earlier rather than in about a year's time? These issues are very urgent and need a focused, sharp report. Would the Minister respond to that?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I would, because I asked the same question myself: why do we have to wait a year? The argument was made very strongly by the RQIA that, after all its consultations and the work that it had done, it will reasonably take from nine to 12 months to produce the report. That disappoints me, because, when we did the Troop review, which was a different course of work, we had an initial report in three months and the final report in six. I have agreed with the inquiry team that, where key findings come to light, they will be made available to us so that we can act on them. The fact that the inquiry will take a year should not stop us taking action where it is identified that action should be taken. I take some comfort from that. I asked the same question myself, and a strong and convincing case was made that it will take this length of time to fully carry out the work that is required.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Going back to the comments of Keir Starmer, does the Minister think that the term of reference that says:

"make recommendations on the future actions required to prevent and tackle child sexual exploitation"

is adequate to permit a recommendation that, as Mr Starmer suggested, failure to report child sex abuse should be made a criminal offence? Is that term of reference adequate for that, and, if it is not, will the Minister look further at that particular term of reference?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member will know, because he practised for many years, that people were prosecuted under the legislation in respect of the withholding of information on wrongdoing. Therefore, I do not accept what some in the PSNI seem to think, which is that withholding information on child abuse is something that is untested. In fact, withholding information on criminal activity has been tested, and people have been found guilty of it. It is absolutely essential that the police and prosecution service do not in any way give succour to people who withhold information of any kind on criminal activity: terrorism, child abuse or otherwise. They should come forward and make what they know known to the police and the Public Prosecution Service and allow justice to flow from that.

Executive Committee Business

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I beg to move

That The Fishing Boats (Satellite - Tracking Devices) Scheme (Northern Ireland) 2013 be approved.

The fishing boats scheme forms a part of the package of strategic assistance I announced for the sea fish catching sector earlier this year. You will recall that, on 21 October, the Assembly approved a scheme to assist the fishing industry with the cost of harbour and landing dues in response to the difficulties caused by unusual weather in the first quarter of 2013 and adapting to the challenges of reducing fish discards under the reformed common fisheries policy. I said at that time that it was appropriate to look at the needs of the fleet in a strategic way. These two schemes form part of that package of measures.

As part of the requirements of the common fisheries policy, fishing vessels over 12 metres in length must fit satellite-tracking devices and transmit their position every two hours to the fishing authorities. That has been a requirement for vessels over 15 metres in length since 2005 and for smaller vessels since 2011. Larger vessels have been using such equipment since 2006, while smaller vessels have yet to be equipped. In order to meet the new requirements for smaller vessels, a new generation tracking device has been developed and is now available. As well as sending the vessel's position, the new system has the capacity to send electronic logbook transmissions via satellite link to the authorities if the vessel is out of range of mobile phone transmission. Our intention is to equip the smaller vessels with this new system as soon as possible and to offer larger vessels the opportunity to fit the system. That is because the older systems have been operating for some years and are nearing the end of their operational life, so they will be liable to more breakdowns and expensive repairs.

In the context of the provision of strategic assistance to the fleet to help it to adapt to change, I decided that it was appropriate that the Department should fund not just the first-time installation for smaller vessels but the replacement of the older systems for larger vessels. Funding has therefore been secured from Europe for 90% of the cost, with 10% coming from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD). The European funding is being provided through a fund for financial assistance for expenditure on fisheries control, inspection and surveillance and is separate funding from the European Fisheries Fund.

The cost of the systems will be around £1,500 per vessel. That includes reasonable installation costs and a three-year warranty. Arrangements have also been put in place to pay the supplier directly once the system is installed so that vessel owners will not have to pay any money up front. All the vessel owner has to do is complete an application form and arrange with the supplier for a suitable date to fit the equipment.

We intend to launch the scheme on 1 December. We encourage any eligible vessel to apply as soon as possible, so that installation can take place in a planned way over the winter months. I estimate that the final amount of grant awarded under the scheme will be approximately £200,000. I believe that that assistance will be a welcome boost to our fishermen to assist them with the costs of complying with the common fisheries policy. Therefore, I recommend the scheme to the House.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

As Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this motion. The statutory rule is ultimately about European requirements for inspections and enforcement of EU rules that apply to fishing boats. Whilst that is not necessarily something that the fishing industry is keen on, I think that all recognise the need for it. If it has to happen, at least this statutory rule will allow the affected fishing boats to avail themselves of 100% funding to ensure that they comply with the regulations.

The Minister has already outlined the EU regulation that requires all fishing vessels over 12 metres to have a vessel-monitoring system capable of allowing the fisheries management authorities to automatically locate and identify the vessel. Vessels of 12 to 15 metres will be fitting such tracking devices for the first time, while those over 15 metres will have older devices that need replaced. The scheme will be funded by a 90% grant from Europe and a 10% grant from DARD. In total, DARD has secured some £294,000 for the scheme.

The Committee initially considered the statutory rule in May 2012. We noted that it was not progressed at that stage because of consideration being given to extending it to allow for the replacement of the older devices on boats over 15 metres. DARD has indicated to the Committee that some 120 boats will be able to avail themselves of the scheme. We look forward to getting an update on how many actually did. Once the decision had been made to allow for replacement on over-15-metre boats, the statutory rule came back to the Committee at its meetings of 2 July and 10 September 2013. At that point, the Committee indicated that it was content.

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

I, like the Chairman, welcome the statement by the Minister and, indeed, the merits of the scheme. It is an EU regulatory scheme that is desirable for a number of reasons for the commercial fishing industry in Northern Ireland. Better tracking helps safety-at-sea requirements and ensures that fishing regulations such as days at sea and total allowable catch are being complied with without doubt or unease. The proper documentation of fishing catches is necessary for the scientific monitoring and recording of fish stocks. If we want to see a proper fishing development plan for our fishing industry, centered around the three fishing ports of Portavogie, Kilkeel and Portaferry, this satellite-monitoring scheme is desirable and worthwhile for the industry in the long term. I welcome the fact that DARD has secured EU grant support funding for the scheme. I wish the fishing industry well in implementing it and look forward to the improvements that can accrue from it.

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

I thank the Minister for her statement, which I also welcome. When our boats leave Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel to go out to fish, they can be dealing in four different fishing areas in Scottish waters, Irish waters or English waters. I am hopeful that these devices and the EU legislation will be applied uniformly across the four jurisdictions.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank all the Members who contributed to the debate, and I think that this sends out a very strong message to the fishing community that the Assembly and the Executive are committed to demonstrating our commitment to the ongoing sustainability of the fishing industry. Thank you for the contributions.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved:

That The Fishing Boats (Satellite - Tracking Devices) Scheme (Northern Ireland) 2013 be approved.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move

That the draft Pharmacy (1976 Order) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2013 be approved.

I seek the Assembly’s approval to introduce the aforementioned statutory rule. Subject to the Assembly’s approval, the rule will amend the Pharmacy (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. I will now explain briefly to Members why the amendment is needed.

There is currently no consistency across the nine statutory healthcare professional regulatory bodies with regard to legislation or guidance on the need to hold appropriate indemnity cover. In the past, concerns have arisen about the fact that some healthcare professionals practise without cover or with insufficient cover and that, in such circumstances, those whom they treat may be left without the means to seek redress in the event of a negative incident occurring that was caused by the negligence of the healthcare professional. In light of these concerns, the UK Government commissioned an independent review of policy on insurance and indemnity cover for healthcare professionals led by Finlay Scott the former chief executive of the General Medical Council.

In June 2010, the independent review group reported. It concluded that requiring healthcare professionals to have insurance or indemnity cover in place as a condition of their registration was the most cost-effective and efficient means of achieving the policy objective that all registered healthcare professionals have indemnity cover to ensure that individuals harmed due to the negligent activities of healthcare professionals can seek redress through compensation. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, along with the other three UK Health Departments, accepted the recommendations of the independent review group and undertook to introduce legislation to implement them at the next most appropriate opportunity.

During the review, negotiations were ongoing in Europe on a directive on patients’ rights that raised, amongst other topics, the question of professional indemnity. On 28 February 2011, the European Union Commission, Parliament and European Council formally adopted directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare. This directive came into force on 9 March 2011. The directive places a requirement on member states that, by 25 October 2013, they have transposed into domestic law:

“systems of professional liability insurance, or a guarantee or similar arrangement that is equivalent or essentially comparable as regards its purpose and which is appropriate to the nature and the extent of the risk, are in place for treatment provided”

in member states.

As the majority of the regulation of healthcare professionals is performed on a UK-wide basis, the Department of Health has been proceeding with the transposition of the EU directive on behalf of all four administrations for these individuals.

The Department of Health in England recognises that it will not be able to make the 25 October 2013 date work. However, work is ongoing, and it anticipates that the requirement to transpose into domestic law will be met by mid-February 2014.

However, the regulation of pharmacists in Northern Ireland is currently undertaken by a separate statutory body, the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland — the society. Pharmacists in Northern Ireland are currently regulated under the Pharmacy (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 as amended and the supporting subordinate legislation. It is anticipated that the order will come into operation in Northern Ireland approximately two weeks after the required transposition date. It is anticipated that the risk of infraction proceedings by the EU Commission in the intervening period is relatively low.

My Department therefore proposes to meet the requirements of the EU directive by transposing article 4(2)(d) through this draft amendment order, which requires practising pharmacists to have appropriate cover under an indemnity arrangement. The draft order permits the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland to make regulation on certain provisions of the order; for example, what information they will require and when to ensure that practising pharmacists have indemnity cover in place.

The proposed legislation will have little or no financial impact on the vast majority of pharmacists. It will also permit the society to take action against a practising pharmaceutical chemist in the event of there not being an indemnity arrangement in place, a failure to comply with the information requirements or a failure to inform the registrar if an indemnity arrangement ceases. The action may be to remove the pharmacist from the register or to take fitness-to-practise action against them. The changes that are being proposed mirror changes that are proposed for the regulation of pharmacists in GB.

In summary, what I am proposing by requiring practising pharmacists to have indemnity cover in place as a statutory condition of registration will enhance patient and public confidence in the pharmacy profession and will provide a means of redress for patients in the event of a negative incident caused by negligence. Implementation of the amending legislation will have little or no effect on the vast majority of pharmacists in Northern Ireland, as insurance or indemnity cover is currently a professional requirement, which, in the majority of instances, is provided for by a pharmacist’s employer.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for the statement. The Minister explained the purpose of the draft statutory rule, which requires the Assembly's affirmation before it can come into operation. The regulations, as the Minister said, will ensure that pharmacists have insurance or indemnity cover in place as a condition of their registration with the Pharmaceutical Society and will also reconstitute the council of the Pharmaceutical Society and extend the council’s regulation-making powers on discipline.

The Committee initially considered the proposed legislation at its meeting on 18 September 2013 and the draft order at its meeting on 2 October 2013. The Committee agreed to recommend that it be affirmed by the Assembly. I therefore support the motion on behalf of the Committee.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I welcome the Minister's statement, and I am sure that all pharmacists in Northern Ireland will do the same. I spent last Friday morning in a very busy pharmacy in Ballynahinch, and I assure Members, if they need any assurance, how dedicated the people behind the counter are. Their minds have to concentrate on the work that they are doing for fear of some slip-up. I assure the Members that all the pharmacies in Northern Ireland are up for it. This will give them support and backing, and I support the statutory rule.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Members for their comments and the Committee for its work in helping to progress this. I fully agree with Mr McCarthy that pharmacists play a very important role in society. The indemnity that will now be required if the proposal passes will not be a professional but a statutory requirement. I think that it is very important that that is the case and that pharmacists receive that support and indemnity on a statutory footing.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the draft Pharmacy (1976 Order) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2013 be approved.

Committee Business

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 11 April 2014, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Further Provisions and Support for Victims) Bill [NIA Bill 26/11-15].

The Committee Stage of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Further Provisions and Support for Victims) Bill began on 25 September. The Bill consists of 19 clauses and covers four main areas: offences; assistance and support; the protection of victims of trafficking in human beings in criminal investigation and proceedings; and prevention and reporting.

The Committee appreciates the interest there is in this Bill, in particular around clause 6, which makes it an offence to purchase sexual services. The Committee has therefore written to a wide range of organisations and key stakeholders inviting comments and views to assist its scrutiny of the Bill. We have also placed notices in the local newspapers and on the Assembly website. To date, the Committee has received in excess of 120 submissions from a range of statutory and voluntary organisations and numerous individuals, many of which make substantial comments on the Bill.

While the closing date for written submissions was last Friday, a number of organisations have requested an extension to the deadline to enable them to submit evidence this week. Therefore, the number of written submissions is likely to rise further. The Committee will take oral evidence on the Bill from the end of November onwards. With the volume of written evidence received, the oral evidence sessions are likely to take some time to complete.

Given the level of interest in the Bill and the need for robust and detailed scrutiny of the areas that it covers, at the meeting on 17 October, members agreed to seek an extension to the Committee Stage until 11 April next year. This extension would enable the Committee to undertake a visit to Sweden to meet relevant officials and representatives to discuss the outworkings of its legislation, which is similar to that provided for by clause 6 of the Bill, and to meet the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality to discuss its report on a review of legislation on prostitution, in which it has recommended adopting a similar approach to the Swedish model. These meetings will greatly assist and inform members' consideration of the issues. While the extension would result in a relatively long Committee Stage, we do have to deal with a range of other criminal justice issues during this time, including other Bills to be introduced by the Department of Justice in the near future.

As indicated during Second Stage, the Committee has made it clear that it wants to see the strongest possible legislation introduced in Northern Ireland in relation to human trafficking. The Committee wants to give the Bill the detailed scrutiny that it merits and will require time to discuss the issues covered within it. The Committee will report to the Assembly on the Bill as soon as possible within the proposed timescale of 11 April 2014.

I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 11 April 2014, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Further Provisions and Support for Victims) Bill [NIA Bill 26/11-15].

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I beg to move

That this Assembly approves the report of the Committee review group entitled 'Review of the Committee System' (NIA 135/11-15).

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. It is my pleasure to move this motion on the work of the Committee review group (CRG) looking at the Committee system.

The need for the review came from a recommendation made by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee that it would be:

"prudent for the Assembly to make an early start to a review of the Assembly Committee System and that the CLG should have an important role in this review."

On the foot of this recommendation, the terms of reference for a review of the Committee system were agreed by the Chairpersons' Liaison Group (CLG). The review was undertaken by a Committee review group made up of one Chairperson from each of the political parties represented on the CLG, and three expert advisers. Those advisers were Dr Ruth Fox, director and head of research of the Hansard Society; Mr Art O'Leary, secretary of Constitutional Convention Ireland; and Mr Trevor Reaney, Director General and Clerk to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks, on behalf of the CRG, to the expert advisers and all the other staff and officials for sharing their expertise and contributing so willingly to the review.

In undertaking the review, the CRG met regularly over a six-month period. We commissioned research on Committee systems in other legislatures and considered briefing papers on membership turnover scenarios, with different numbers of Committees and members. In addition to the research and discussion papers, the CRG of course drew on the experience and knowledge of members themselves.

I would like to point out that, while Committee reviews have been undertaken in the past, this was the first such review to take an integrated approach across all aspects of the Committee system. In addition to reviewing the structure of the Committee system, the CRG looked at options to enhance the Assembly's political policy development, scrutiny, consultation and legislative roles in the short to medium term. The group focused its deliberations on developing a vision and principles for the Committee system; identifying and evaluating the strengths and weaknesses in the Committee system; and recommending areas for improvement. The CRG provided regular updates to the CLG on our progress and the emerging findings of the review. We also consulted the five political parties represented on the CRG on the emerging findings and outline proposals.

Having looked at examples of other Committee systems, nationally and internationally, the CRG was largely content with the overall architecture of the current Committee system. Key strengths identified were that Committees have a wide remit, with powers to call Ministers and Departments to account, hold inquiries and shape legislation. It was felt that, informally, Committees have significant influence in their relevant sphere of policy and, apparently, compare favourably with other legislatures. Committees are also accessible and have a high level of engagement with the public. That is evident in the number of external visits and meetings that Committees undertake and the innovative ways in which Committees engage and collect evidence. I think it is fair to say that that is not widely acknowledged.

The CRG was mindful of the prevailing political and constitutional climate in which there has been considerable debate about proposals to reduce the number of MLAs and to reorganise and perhaps reduce the number of Departments. The CRG agrees that that would have clear implications for the Committee structure. Therefore, the group concluded that it would not be prudent at this stage to propose any fundamental changes to the Committee system of the Assembly.

In that context, the CRG considered what aspects of the Committee system it wished to retain and identified what aspects would benefit from improvement or enhancement. For example, a major conclusion of the review was that the link between each Committee and a single Executive Department should be retained. The CRG regards the organisation of Statutory Committees, which mirrors the machinery of the Government, as a key strength that clearly finds its origins in the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.

A Committee's ability to provide direct oversight of a Department and its ministerial team underpins the Committee's capacity to conduct focused and effective scrutiny. In considering the case for change, the CRG looked at other legislatures where the Committee structure is based on thematic policy areas or where Committees cover a multitude of departmental briefs. However, in those cases, the Committee can find it difficult to hold a relevant Minister and Department to account. The CRG also noted that the Assembly framework of one Committee for each Department is built to accommodate the consociational framework of Committees.

The Chairpersons of Statutory Committees are from a different political party than the corresponding Minister. That clear delineation might be blurred if Committees were merged. In fact, that could be detrimental to the independence of the Committee in question. However, in coming to that conclusion, the CRG agreed that there would be merit in revisiting structural issues in 2015, in advance of the anticipated changes in 2016. The CRG also agreed that the current composition of Committees is in broad proportion to party strength in the Assembly and therefore recommends that Statutory Committee membership should be retained at 11. However, that should also be reviewed in advance of any institutional changes in 2016.

In proposing no major structural changes, the CRG recognises that that consequently places limits on the scope and extent of other proposals that it can recommend at this time. The CRG considered whether any aspect of Committee work would benefit from the creation of additional powers, but concluded that Committees are currently equipped with adequate powers. Although the CRG did not see any value in extending Committee powers to amend legislation, it agreed that Committees could do more to ensure that potential amendments are fully discussed and considered at Committee Stage, and reported to the Assembly. While acknowledging that Committees have sufficient powers, the CRG agreed that a key constraining factor to more effective and strategic working is that Committees face too many demands, with limited resources and capacity to fully utilise those powers.

A number of measures were discussed to address how to make the best use of Committee powers and resources. Those included a recommendation to improve the operation of meetings and attendance; strengthening existing protocols between the Executive and the Assembly to improve the quality and timeliness of information to Committees from Departments; and for the Assembly to initiate a dialogue with the Executive on protocols to improve appropriate access to Ministers and/or officials.

A key theme running through the review was the need for Committees to apply a more strategic and systematic approach to their work. Members agreed that there would be value in exploring how to develop a more strategic approach to the planning of Committee business, prioritising specific areas of work and allowing capacity for particular issues to be explored in greater depth. To support that approach, the CRG recommends that a set of core tasks are developed to guide Committees' forward work programmes and that Committees should develop strategic plans that set out key priorities, objectives and targets within a core task framework.

The Committee review group considered the role of the Chairpersons' Liaison Group and did not see merit in formalising its role in Standing Orders. However, it agreed that the role of the CLG could be expanded and could be an effective mechanism to support Committees in adopting a more strategic and systematic approach to their forward work programmes. As a point of principle, however, although the CRG sees the benefit of standard procedures and adopting best practice, it is also keen to maintain the autonomy of each Committee in determining its own forward work programme and priorities.

Although the CRG concluded that public engagement is a key strength of the Assembly's Committee system, it identified a need for Committees to maximise the use of technologies to engage to an even greater extent with the wider public and what are described as hard-to-reach groups.

I will now pass over to my Committee review group colleagues for them to outline in more detail other issues and recommendations in the report.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I welcome the review and endorse the report's recommendations. I thank the staff who were involved in producing the report. Others will look at certain aspects of the report, but I want to draw attention to the review's work on public engagement, which was identified as a key strength of the Committee system. Committees are doing much to engage with the public, and that is demonstrated by the number of external meetings, online broadcasting and access, stakeholder events and an increasing use of social media networking sites.

Statutory Committees undertake a wide range of activities, from formal weekly meetings to external meetings, visits and stakeholder events. Committees strive to be accessible and in addition to holding formal Committee meetings in Parliament Buildings, undertake meetings and visits in a multitude of venues and locations across Northern Ireland.

Although 81% of visits undertaken by Committees are in Northern Ireland, they are doing much more to be accessible beyond Parliament Buildings and Northern Ireland. It is fair to say that the evidence backs the claim that Committees are committed to ensuring that as many people as possible have an opportunity to take part in the work of the Assembly and to opening up opportunities for local communities to influence the work of Committees. That was seen, for example, in June and October when 14 Committees took part in two joint visits to Londonderry to mark the UK City of Culture.

Assembly Committees have become known for using innovative methods to engage with stakeholders. There are numerous examples of Committees successfully using a range of internal stakeholder events in Parliament Buildings and external venues to target their engagement with key stakeholders, including children and young people, academic and educational institutions and key interest groups in the private, voluntary and community sectors. Those are examples of Committees not only engaging with the public but doing much more collaborative working across a number of cross-cutting issues such as health; justice; education; culture, arts and leisure; and the environment.

However, the CRG identified a need for Committees to maximise the use of technologies to engage to an even greater extent with the wider public and hard-to-reach groups. A strategic balance also needs to be struck between facilitating as many stakeholder groups and meetings as possible and ensuring that maximum value is extracted from each one in the interests of members and the public. The need for that balance should be considered as part of each Committee's strategic plan and emerging work programme.

Although not part of the terms of reference, concerns were raised about the operation of all-party groups (APGs) at the Assembly. In particular, there was concern about the growth of APGs and how that could impact on Committee business. Frustrations have been expressed about the scheduling of APGs when they clash with formal Committee business. Given that Committees are already stretched, that places further pressure on members' time.

Concern was also expressed about the inappropriate use of APGs. That was in relation to the secretariats for those groups, which are not Member led but can lead to issues around transparency, agenda setting and the control of access to APGs. There is also concern about the appointment of secretariats and how that can create the perception of hierarchy within sectors whereby a group administering an APG could be seen as being favoured.

There are 35 APGs registered that are researching issues and putting forward proposals outside the formal Committee network. CRG considered whether there should be a limit on the number of APGs in light of ongoing concerns about transparency. I therefore welcome the recommendation in the review that the issue of the number and governance of APGs and their secretariats, including their role and appointment process, is referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome this review and endorse the recommendations in the report. In particular, I draw attention to the need for Committees to manage their resources more efficiently and effectively and use Committee powers to greater effect.

As the Chair already outlined, CRG concluded that there was no need to expand Committee powers. However, Committees do not always make the best use of the powers that they have. That can be largely down to limited resources and heavy work programmes. One way of dealing with that is for Committees to take greater control of their agendas and work programmes. The benefits of adopting a more strategic approach to work programmes were alluded to as one way of dealing with that.

In terms of making the most of Committee powers, Committees can be extremely influential. For example, the statutory power to compel the production of persons or papers confirms the important role that Committees play in ensuring accountability, but it is notable that that power has not yet been exercised to its full extent. That may be due to the fact that the threat of invoking the power is sufficient, or, on a more positive note, it could be a reflection of the general positive, productive and professional relationships that Committees have established with stakeholders, including Departments. That is sometimes due to the experience of those Departments, but, having served on the Public Accounts Committee, I know that that sends out a very sharp message.

However, whilst it is fair to say that Committees are normally successful at obtaining the information they require, one factor that can have an adverse effect on that positive relationship is the late delivery of requested papers by Departments, which gives members insufficient time to consider them before questioning witnesses. A fortnight ago, the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee received papers from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister that were 10 months late. Late access to budget papers and departmental delivery plans have been quoted as examples of the capacity of Committees to fulfil their statutory functions having been adversely affected.

While there are protocols in place on timescales for interaction between Assembly Committees and Departments, CRG recommends that CLG strengthens the protocols between the Executive and the Assembly to ensure the quality and timeliness of information provided to Committees by Departments.

Another issue that the CRG looked at was the appearance of relevant officials before Committees and departmental controls on that. There have been instances in which a Committee may have had difficulty in gaining access to an official who was best placed or most suited to provide the relevant assistance and detail to it in its enquiries. Due to departmental machinations and the transfer of staff, that person was not made available. Further problems can arise when officials have moved on and, as a result, the full facts, as they were at the time, are difficult to establish and the chain of accountability can become blurred.

CRG recognises that it is normally appropriate for Ministers to determine who should represent them at Committees. However, it also concluded that from time to time Committees should be able to request and, if necessary, insist on the attendance of specific officials or Ministers to assist them in their enquiries. I therefore strongly support the recommendation that the Assembly initiate a dialogue with the Executive in order to agree protocols about appropriate access to officials and/or Ministers in pursuit of full accountability.

The issue of resources, and the challenges that it presents to Committees, was also discussed at length by Committees. There is no doubt that Committees consume a large amount of members' time and that of Ministers, departmental officials and stakeholders. For example, Committees held 1,182 meetings from the beginning of the current mandate until June 2013. On average, Committee meetings last approximately two and a half hours, and it is estimated that almost 3,000 hours of time is devoted to attending Committee meetings. In addition, Committees travel to external venues for meetings, undertake visits, hold stakeholder events and informal meetings. That increases the time commitment required by members, but it was regarded as a very important aspect of Committee work, as it allows greater access to Committees and assists them and, indeed, members, in understanding and exploring a range of issues that cannot always be covered within the formal Committee proceedings.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member's time is almost gone.

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

I support the report.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I welcome the report. On several occasions, the CRG discussed the importance of Committees needing to be more strategic. I will say a few words on the recommendations regarding strategic planning.

We recognise that, by necessity, Committee work plans are often dictated by the timetable for scrutiny of legislation and regulations, and that they therefore tend to follow the pace of the Department's forward work programme. However, we also recognise that Committees need to have a wider perspective on what they do and how they link into each other's policies and objectives as a whole.

I support the recommendation that the CLG should define a set of core tasks to assist with strategic and systematic planning, including scrutiny of the Programme for Government, as well as post-legislative scrutiny, which is an issue that the Environment Committee has referred to many times. The CRG also recommends that Committees should develop a strategic plan that sets out its key priorities, objectives, targets and planned outputs within the core task framework. Many businesses or voluntary sector organisations do that on a regular basis to give them the direction of travel to achieve their set goals. Why should we not?

Another recommendation is that a planning day, or days, should be held at the start of each Assembly session to inform the strategic approach of the Committee. The Environment Committee has fully embraced that suggestion, holding its first planning day in the Lough Neagh Discovery Centre on 19 September. It was held as a formal meeting which was also minuted. The minutes set out in some detail the format of the meeting, as well as the agreed outcomes, and they provide a concise and publicly available record of what the Committee hopes to achieve over the coming year. That was a useful outcome of holding the planning day as a formal meeting, albeit in closed session. I know that some of the other Committees did not do that and, subsequently, found it difficult to ratify the decisions taken at an informal planning awayday.

The use of a location outside Parliament Buildings, particularly one which allowed much more informal engagement between members than our usual venue of the Senate Chamber, was worthwhile. It also meant that there were fewer distractions for members, such as Long Gallery events, as we all know. We also found it useful to have the planning day as a pre-determined date for considering the Committee's workload. That meant that members were able to flag up areas which they believed were worth more detailed scrutiny.

Members were then confident that these issues would not be lost in the pressure of business in the coming days.

We also discussed the need for preparation before the planning day. We needed to identify the mandatory areas of our work, such as the scrutiny of legislation, and then decide possible areas of focus. We had to clarify and agree the scope and timescale of those areas. For example, the Committee debated which inquiries, if any, should be undertaken. After considering possible topics, it was agreed that a short scrutiny of wind energy should be undertaken before Christmas and a more detailed inquiry into water quality in Lough Neagh should happen next year.

To fully consider these, an adequate level of background information was provided in the pack for the planning meeting. This structured method, no, methodical, approach — I need my glasses, but I am just too vain — [Laughter.]

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

Is there a resource issue?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

No. That would defeat the purpose. So, this structured and methodical approach ensured that the planning —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member's time is almost gone.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

— day did not degenerate into an undisciplined expression of wish lists with no factual background or evidence.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member's time is gone.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I therefore recommend a good planning day to all Committees.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. The report of the Committee review group talks about expanding the role of the Audit Committee, and I want to set out the Audit Committee's position on the principles underpinning that recommendation.

It has been the Audit Committee's long-standing position that the Northern Ireland Audit Office should be not just independent of the Executive but actually responsible for scrutinising the financial performance of Departments and should not have to rely on the Executive for its funding. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 already recognises this in providing for the Audit Committee, in place of DFP, to agree the annual Estimates of the Audit Office and lay them before the Assembly. On various occasions, the Audit Committee has sought to have this principle reinforced in the Budget process, and it looks forward to that being the case in the forthcoming memorandum of understanding between the Executive and the Assembly on the Budget process.

Of course, given that the ombudsman and the Assembly are also independent of the Executive and, in their respective ways, responsible for holding the Executive and Departments to account, it is sensible that similar mechanisms should be put in place to ensure their financial independence. The Audit Committee looked at that issue earlier this year and last year. At the time, we wrote to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to confirm that we were content that the Audit Committee should agree the annual Estimate for the use of resources for the proposed Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman. The recommendation in today's report is consistent with our position on that.

Just because a body is financially independent of the Executive that does not mean, of course, that it should be any less accountable as a result. The Audit Committee is committed to ensuring that the Northern Ireland Audit Office is fully accountable to the Assembly for its financial performance. In fact, the Chairperson of the Audit Committee is meeting the Public Accounts Commission in Westminster today to see if there are any lessons to learn from the new governance arrangements in place at the National Audit Office. Equally, if the role of the Audit Committee is expanded to cover the ombudsman and Assembly, it will be important to ensure that those bodies continue to be accountable for their financial performance.

The report also talks about how secretarial support for the new single Committee should be managed within existing secretariat resources, which I welcome. When the Audit Committee agreed that it should agree the annual Estimate for the ombudsman's use of resources, it did not anticipate that a significant additional resource would be required. It is important, particularly in the current climate, for our reforms to be at least cost-neutral where possible.

On behalf of the Audit Committee, I welcome the report's recommendations on expanding the Committee's role.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the opportunity to speak about the report, and I do so as Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. Although the Committee was not formally consulted or involved in the review, the report contains a few issues that are relevant to our Committee's work.

Page 30 of the report, particularly paragraphs 149 to 152, refer to all-party groups, which my colleague Miss McIlveen outlined. A number of Chairpersons have expressed concerns in the report about the operation of all-party groups. Most Members are members of at least one all-party group and are aware of the positive work that many all-party groups can do, but I recognise that there are concerns about the growth in the number of APGs and how that could impact on Committee business. It is important to say that members of all-party groups have a responsibility to ensure that the work of those groups does not impact on official Committee business. Members of all-party groups have a responsibility to ensure that there is no clash of meeting times or that the work that they do does not interfere with official Committee business.

The report also refers to allegations about all-party groups that have been made in other places. I am sure that we are all aware of the considerable media attention that has been focused on all-party groups, particularly at Westminster. I am not sure that any of us in this House have been offered such glamorous holidays with any association that we have here, but, nevertheless, it is a concern that, I know, the media have picked up on. Therefore, the public will rightly ask what the situation is here in Northern Ireland. The report also claims that secretarial support for all-party groups is not Member-led and that that can lead to issues about transparency, agenda-setting and the control of access to all-party groups.

First, I welcome the fact that the Committee on Standards and Privileges will be asked to look at this. As a Committee, we have always been open to having issues referred to us and to giving that confidence to the Assembly that we will look at them. On the issue of the number of APGs, the Committee currently has to approve the creation of all-party groups. I am not sure whether it would be the appropriate Committee to prevent an all-party group if it meets current criteria. However, we are keen to look at that, and I pledge to do that.

It is also important, however, to make the current provision clear and to perhaps provide some reassurance to the Assembly. We already have in place measures for all-party groups in the Northern Ireland Assembly that are more robust than those at Westminster. That is a result of the changes in 2010 to the current rules on APGs, as, indeed, paragraph 150 of the report acknowledges. Prior to the introduction of the rules, membership of all-party groups was open to outside individuals and organisations. Since then, membership of APGs has been limited to Assembly Members. In making that change, the Committee on Standards and Privileges wanted to ensure that all-party groups could not be used by outside parties in a way that would either be inappropriate or, indeed, undemocratic. The current rules allow for outside organisations and individuals to attend all-party group meetings and to inform and support their work. Whether and how that is done is a matter for each all-party group to agree. I must be clear: any organisation or individual invited to attend or support an all-party group meeting cannot be regarded as a member of that APG and cannot vote at any meeting on any issue.

It is also the case that the secretariats to all-party groups have no powers. The only role that they have is the role that the MLAs on that group give to them. That means that transparency, agenda setting and control of access to an all-party group are already matters that rest firmly in the hands of the MLAs who sit on that group. There is a responsibility on MLAs to ensure that they assert that authority when it is needed. I have heard anecdotally of concerns that certain groups perhaps monopolise all-party groups. It is up to the members of those groups to ensure that that does not happen, and I hope that that is the case.

It is permissible for all-party groups to receive financial support or material benefits from outside interests, provided that those benefits are properly registered and their receipt in no way breaches the advocacy rule. I hope that all Members in the House are aware of the code of conduct, the statutes that are on the books at present and how we have to register those things. The Assembly, of course, maintains a publicly accessible register of all-party groups that sets out any benefits that the group has received. It includes details of the secretarial support that third parties have provided to all-party groups.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member must draw his remarks to a close.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of any discussions that our Committee has, but it is important to put on record the steps that have already been taken on all-party groups. I look forward to examining this more closely as part of the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

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

Lloyd George said that a camel was a horse designed by a committee. The question that is before us today is this: do we produce camels, or do we produce horses? I am certain that all of us want to produce horses. The question that therefore arises is this: do we have the capacity to do that and the resources to assist us in doing it? This is, therefore, a very timely debate to examine the effectiveness of our Committee system.

I believe that the architecture of our Committee system is as good as it is going to get. We have quite considerable powers, but I do not think that we have used them particularly well. Nonetheless, those powers are there, and we can use them. What is required is a good look at ourselves. The report does that, but we need to look at our individual professional capacities as representatives of the people in the House. For example, how well do we use our time on Committees? I think that we could use our time much better.

The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, of which I was a member for a long time, is the best Committee in the House, as you will know, Mr Speaker. It may well remain the best Committee in the House despite the fact that I am not on it. I note that that Committee has looked at how it times those who want to give evidence to it and those who wish to ask questions and interrogate the witnesses. That is a very important and basic step, but it is very helpful. In this Chamber, we normally have five minutes to speak, which is a good discipline, and we all fall into that discipline. In Committee, if we were given a minute or two minutes to ask questions, maybe that would be a much more effective way for us to use our time and the capacity that we have.

I pay tribute to Politics Plus, which is doing a tremendous job for us as legislators. It is very helpful with our techniques and so forth, and long may that continue. It improves our quality as representatives, particularly on Committees but elsewhere as well.

Resources are very important. Our biggest single resource is our staff, who service our Committees extremely well, but I detect that we are stretching our staff too far and that we are perhaps overloading and overburdening them. That arises from the constraints that we have on our budget. There is a cap on the recruitment of staff. I hope that I am not straying too far, but I know that the Commission has agreed a policy of capping staff numbers. That is all very well in theory, but in practice it leads to problems with resource management in Committees and the Assembly as a whole. My view is a personal view and not a party one, but I think that we should look at those budgetary constraints again. We should look at the cap on the recruitment of staff because that will give us the flexibility that is necessary to fill in those gaps and reduce the burdens and the overstretching of our staff. I invite colleagues to consider those points afresh. The time for those constraints has passed, and we should look afresh at that. I believe that that would help us to have good resources and to produce the horses that we want instead of the camels that unfortunately may be produced from time to time.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I agree with Mr Maginness. We certainly all want to produce horses and not camels.

I will use some other quotations. It will come as no surprise to Members that I am in favour of having a proper opposition here. Hopefully, when the House passes my private Member's Bill, we will have that.

As Benjamin Disraeli once said:

"No Government can be long secure without a formidable Opposition."

One of the concerns that I have about the report is that the main structure for opposition in the Assembly is our Committee system. There are things that we should be doing better and changing to make our Committees as effective as possible. We have identified some of the weaknesses of the structures. In his contribution, Mr McGlone said that the Assembly and the Executive need to have a conversation. We should remember who the Executive are accountable to. They are accountable to the House. They are all part of the House, and we should not lose sight of who works for who in this set-up. We should always remember the rights of Committees and Back-Benchers in the Assembly, and that the Executive are held accountable by them and must report to the House.

We often see examples of officials failing to turn up to Committees and almost displaying contempt for the Committee structure. At times, Ministers do not turn up, fail to respond to debates or give late replies to questions. All of that shows a contempt for the Assembly that should not be tolerated. Other Assemblies and Parliaments throughout the UK and, indeed, these islands would not tolerate that. We should not accept a second-rate service. We expect the Assembly to function and to hold the entire Executive to account.

There are other changes that would be helpful to the Committee structure. When we eventually start to look at a proper opposition here, and more parties buy into that concept, we need to look at how the chairmanships of Committees are given out. There is a strong argument that opposition parties should have more chairmanships to strengthen scrutiny. I also have to state that, even in the current structure, the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee should not be held by a government party; it should be held by a Member from the opposition Benches and a non-Executive party. Sinn Féin got into some difficulties when it held the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee after it carried out an inquiry into Northern Ireland Water. That is a clear example of why the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, a Committee that is pivotal in holding public bodies to account, should not come from Executive parties. That is a key point.

During the debate, Members mentioned the work of Politics Plus and the bringing in of outsiders to help with the training of Members to build up their capacity and that of Committees. One of the events that Politics Plus ran was a session on the way that the Scottish Parliament works. Part of every Bill in the Scottish Parliament — the financial memorandum — is referred to its Finance Committee. That session looked at how detailed the financial memorandums of the Scottish Parliament are, compared with those of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Those are all things that we should be looking at to lift the work and working knowledge of the Assembly and its Committees. Committees should not just be there to nod compliantly when their Ministers are before them. They are there because they are charged with a scrutiny role. That is why —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member's time is almost gone.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

— some aspects of the report are a missed opportunity.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

We are told that the review group worked on this report for six months. It worked for six months to produce nothing. After labouring for six months, what has it produced? No change. Mr Maginness talked about whether we wanted a horse or a camel. I am afraid that we did not even get a mouse — not even a mouse that squeaks. There is not a squeak in the report about change. That is no surprise, of course, because the vested interest right around the House is for inertia and no change. Oh yes, it is very fine when it comes to elections to produce manifestos that talk about reducing Departments to eight or to six or to say that, by 2015, as the DUP manifesto stated, we would have to have an Assembly reduced to 80 Members. Here we are, halfway through the mandate, and there is no prospect of, or desire or vision for, change. I repeat the point: the inertia and the status quo suit the vested interests of the House.

The Chairman of the review group tells us that we do not need legislative change for Committees because they are doing a fine scrutiny role. I suggest that it is time that he read the legislation because, if he did, he would discover that Statutory Committees have no scrutiny role. Yes, the Belfast Agreement, for all its many faults, promised in paragraph 9 of strand one that there would be scrutiny Committees. However, when it came to section 29 of the 1998 Act, conveniently, the designation of scrutiny was dropped, and we established Committees simply with the statutory ambit "to advise and assist" Ministers. Far from being scrutiny Committees that might dare to challenge, their statutory purpose is specified as being "to advise and assist" Ministers, which again is part of the same vested interest. Therefore, even the teeth that were in the Committees in the Belfast Agreement had to be pulled by the time it came to the legislation. It is little wonder that the House is generally held in such public contempt. It is little wonder that poll after poll illustrates that the people whom we are supposed to be serving in the community have little time and regard for the House and hold it in abject contempt on many issues, while the House is complacent and happy to have its arrangements unaltered, even though they are not working with the community out there. It is that same vested interest.

Mr McCallister rightly raised a point about the Public Accounts Committee. Can anyone tell me of another legislature in the Western World in which a government MLA chairs the Public Accounts Committee? It is standard practice across the democratic world that someone from outside the government parties chairs a Public Accounts Committee, but oh no, you could not have that in Stormont. Oh no, that might threaten the institutions and the process. So let us sacrifice that basic modicum of the modest idea of scrutiny by ensuring that even the Public Accounts Committee is chaired by someone who can be relied on, because they are a government member in that they belong to a government party. That is how bad it is for the construction of the House.

I regret the fact, but I will not pretend to be surprised —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member's time is almost gone.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— that no change is the order of the day, because no change is what the vested interests of the House require.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

It is clear from the debate that there has been value in bringing this issue to the House. It has provided all Members, not just those on the Committee review group or, as Jim referred to, those from government parties, with an opportunity to look at whether our Committee system is fit for purpose and where further improvements can be made to enhance the effectiveness of Committees in undertaking their key policy, consultation, legislative and scrutiny roles. Mr Allister referred to Committees not being able to scrutinise, but I have chaired the Employment and Learning Committee, and his putting himself down like that by saying that he did not scrutinise Ministers or departmental officials is, I think, doing himself, as well as many other Members, a disservice. I have sat on a number of Committees that were able to scrutinise and hold Ministers and their officials to account.

I welcome the report's recommendations, which provide a useful focus for Committees to achieve the vision that it sets out: the Assembly should have an outstanding, progressive and resourced system that enhances the capacity and effectiveness of Statutory and Standing Committees in delivering their statutory and other functions. I also welcome and endorse the group's main conclusion that the direct link between each Executive Department and its corresponding Statutory Committee is at the heart of the Committee system. It has been identified as a key strength that should be retained, and I hope that it was not one of the changes referred to earlier. The group discussed whether we should move to thematic Committees. However, we felt that one of the strengths that we had here, a strength enshrined in the Belfast Agreement, was that each Committee reflected directly to its Minister and was able to hold him or her accountable, if its membership was willing and able to do so. This system provides Committees with opportunities, which are not enjoyed to the same degree in other legislatures, to provide the direct oversight of a Department that leads to focused and, importantly, effective scrutiny. The Committee review group concluded that the Committee structure should remain as it is. As outlined by the Chair, the review group regarded it equally important to retain Committee membership at 11, as that is in keeping with the broad proportion of party strengths. That is at the heart of the Belfast Agreement and is also covered in Standing Orders 46 to 64C.

One of the group's key debates was on Committee membership. Alban referred to the time constraints put on Members, and we looked at all sorts of models that would reduce membership. Unfortunately, those who would have lost out were the non-Executive parties. The Committee review group thought it crucial that we kept Committee membership at 11 so that all Members had the opportunity to hold Committee seats.

As the Ulster Unionist representative on the group, I also strongly support the view that the Committees have sufficient powers. However, having been a Committee member since 2011 and the Chair of the Employment and Learning Committee, I think that it is fair to say that Committees do not always make the most of their powers. Committees should consider how to use their powers more effectively. That is referred to at paragraph 11 of the report. Committees have the ability to call people, and they should not always have to rely on whoever the Department or Minister wants to send. As Committees and as Committee Chairs, we should ensure that we make the most of that ability.

I will now refer in more detail to other contributions. The Chair highlighted the fact that the CRG was content with the architecture, structures and number of members in the Committee system. I mentioned that alongside the reasons why CRG wish to see no changes to the structures of the Committee system. However, Mr Maskey made the point that there would be merit in revisiting these structures and issues in 2015, in advance of anticipated changes in 2016 with the reorganisation of Departments, to see whether there should be a reduction in membership. Mr McCallister asked whether there should be provision for an opposition. That is the correct time for putting those procedures in place, not now. He also pointed out that one consequence of making no major structural changes was that it placed limits on the scope and extent of other proposals that could be made at this time. Although proposing no extension to Committee powers, he pointed out that Committees were not making the most of their powers. That view came through from a number of Members. That is a key factor in the role of a Chairman and one that I intend to take forward as Chairperson of the Chairperson's Liaison Group. Chairpersons should make sure that Committees make the most of those powers. However, this had to be viewed in the context of limited resources: for example, Members find themselves overstretched and having to deal with competing demands on their time, including heavy Committee work programmes, multiple membership of Committees and party and constituency work. However, one key role of an MLA is to be on a Committee, which is as important as speaking in the House or constituency work. We are Members of a legislative Assembly, and legislation comes in front of the Committees as well as the House. That is where our role should be.

Added to those demands is the growth in all-party groups, which Michelle McIlveen mentioned and Alastair Ross supported. We have to be careful that all-party groups are managed properly and that, despite having a vested interest in certain issues, their work does not conflict with that of Committees. The Committee on Standards and Privileges has promised to look at that, and I welcome the Chairman's pledge to take it on. It is that Committee's role to register all all-party groups in the House, so the provision is already there.

Anna Lo said that improvements in strategic planning are another way to make the most of Committee resources. Strategic planning is a vital tool that all Committees should use. Day and daily, each Committee receives a request either to visit somewhere or to hold another meeting or evidence session, and unless a proper structure is put in place prior to that, a Committee's workload could end up running away from it, and that does not serve any purpose.

Patsy McGlone outlined the measures to improve Committee resources and raised a very important point about the late delivery of requested papers, especially those on budgets. He also referred to the fact that — this is, I think, the phrase that Patsy used — officials move on, but what he did not say is that sometimes officials are moved on by certain Ministers so that they do not come in front of certain Committees. We should have and use the ability to call all people and papers.

Mr Hilditch welcomed expanding the role of the Audit Committee, specifically under recommendations 31 and 32. The Chairperson is currently at Westminster to look at that. Therefore, to say that the report has produced nothing is unfair and unjust, because there are recommendations in it that will move us forward.

Alban referred to the architecture, support and structure that we have. I know that Mr Maginness sought to make sure that he did not stray too far from the subject matter, but, as the Chairperson of the Chairpersons' Liaison Group, I am willing to raise the issue of capping of staff numbers with the Commission, because the last thing that any organisation or business needs is demotivated staff. We cannot afford to have that in the Assembly or on our Committees, because our staff are crucial to the work that we do.

I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the staff who worked through the different requests that all Members submitted and the experts who came in to advise us on how things work in different places. One of the things pointed out was that in another place, south of the border, they have changed their Committee structures time and time again, to the point at which they are now using the same structure that they used 10 years ago, and everybody thinks that it is great. Therefore, producing a camel instead of a horse can be an ever-evolving process in which we end up with neither.

John McCallister mentioned the failure of Ministers to show up in the House and their late replies to questions. Unfortunately, that does not fall under the remit of the Committee review group. Speaking as a party rep and as Chairman of the Employment and Learning Committee, I know that it is a concern that respect is not being shown to the House. I know that you, Mr Speaker, have taken that on as well.

I look forward to looking at the recommendations in more detail in my capacity as Chair of the Chairpersons' Liaison Group and of the Employment and Learning Committee. I support the notion that Committees should ultimately maintain their autonomy and determine their priorities, but I also agree that they should strive to adopt work practices that continually improve and enhance the effectiveness of Committees while also striving to provide an outstanding, progressive resource system in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. I commend the report to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly approves the report of the Committee review group entitled 'Review of the Committee System' (NIA 135/11-15).

Private Members' Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for this debate. Two amendments have been selected and published on the Marshalled List, so an additional 15 minutes has been added to the total time. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. The proposer of each amendment will have 10 minutes in which to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the ruling of the High Court on the decision to ban blood donations from gay men; further notes with concern that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety's decision was found to be 'irrational', and to have been taken 'in breach of the Ministerial Code'; and calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to lift the ban and outline what steps he will take to build public confidence in relation to statutory equality duties.

I welcome the opportunity to propose this critically important motion to the Floor of the Assembly. We will also support both amendments as tabled.

Equality is the responsibility of us all, and discrimination against any section of our society is not only morally wrong but is legally wrong and contrary to the equality duties and equality legislation. In October this year, Mr Justice Treacy held that the Health Minister breached the ministerial code by failing to take the issue before the Stormont Executive. Mr Justice Treacy found that the Minister's decision was unlawful pursuant to section 28A of the NI Act 1998 by virtue of him having failed to secure Executive approval for the decision, contrary to the requirements of the ministerial code, and by section 20(3) and/or section 20(4) of the 1998 Act as the decision was controversial and/or the decision was in respect of a cross-cutting matter.

The Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (SaBTO) recommended that, in addition to the technological advances in quality control, there have been significant cultural and legal challenges since 2001 that need to be considered when reviewing blood donor systems. The Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

This issue was brought to the Health Committee on 26 October 2011, when it was noted that the advisory committee was set up to advise the devolved Administration and is therefore the expert body on questions of blood safety. The Health Minister noted:

"The Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs ... advises the four ... Health Ministers on how to ensure the safety of blood, cells, tissues and organs for transfusion and transplantation".

The Minister has indicated that, normally, fewer than 100 units a year were received, and the indication is that we receive two lots of 40 units. However, the Minister then confirmed that the Department did not request that blood from England does not come from the men who sleep with men (MSM) category. The Minister indicates that the risks are diminished greatly by the small amounts that we receive. However, if the 12-month deferral was introduced, the risk would be 0·228 per million donations. The current risk is 0·227 per million donations. That would be a rise of 0·001 per million donations. That is recorded on page 24 of Justice Treacy's findings. It goes on to say that if there is an enhanced compliance with having a 12-month ban instead of a lifetime ban, it would reduce the risk of infection considerably, probably by one third. Even figures from the Department show that the compliance rules would be enhanced if we were to go down that route.

In an e-mail dated 9 June 2011, the Blood Transfusion Service stated that senior medical officers in Departments confirmed that, in relation to suggested changes to the lifetime ban, the blood service would have:

"no particular issues about this change",

and, furthermore, it was, in its words:

"well linked into the UK work... and will be ready to implement the change from the beginning of September [2011]."

The issue is deemed significant and controversial, and, through the findings, it is therefore clearly outside the scope of the agreed programme that is referred to in paragraph 20 of strand one of the agreement, which states that it shall be brought to the attention of the Executive.

It is illogical that blood should be imported from elsewhere to maintain the ban in the North of Ireland, and designation of MSM category blood as "high risk" has a disproportionate effect on gay men and therefore indirectly discriminates. It is also noted that the policy is contrary to the EU principle of non-discrimination in article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The issue at hand has been through the courts. It is controversial and cross-cutting, and that is acknowledged in the SaBTO report. It is also acknowledged that the matter touches on equality issues. Furthermore, it deals with the implementation of the EU directive, and, as such, it is suggested that the Minister had no authority to act without bringing it to the attention of the Executive Committee.

Let me deal with potential prejudice. In his findings, Justice Treacy, at least implicitly, doubted whether or not the Minister's decision was motivated by a genuine concern about the safety of MSM blood donation, given the grave defect in logic apparent from that decision. In paragraph 138 of the judgement, the judge placed emphasis on the word "genuine". I suggest that it is unusual, or perhaps highly unusual, for a High Court judge to suggest, however implicitly, that a Minister might not have been acting out of a genuine concern in making a controversial statement.

Let me deal with the powers of the Assembly.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for giving way. She referred to paragraph 138 of the judgement. I refer her to paragraph 141, which deals with discrimination. Can she point out anywhere in the judgement where the judge finds against the Minister on grounds of discrimination, prejudice or bias? I do not see that stated anywhere in this judgement.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I hope that he was listening to the comment that I made. It is clearly and specifically stated in paragraph 138, where the judgement, through the High Court, specifically references, underlines and highlights the genuine concern.

I want to move on to the issue of the Assembly holding the Minister to account. The decision in the High Court found not only that the Minister had acted irrationally but that he had acted without lawful authority and was, therefore, in breach of the ministerial code in respect of a sensitive and very important issue. Those actions have caused much controversy and continue to cause much concern. They have attracted a great deal of public concern and legitimate public interest. In my view, the Assembly must now hold the Minister to account, and ensure that, as part of that process, the Minister provides the legal advice that he has received and that, until now, has refused to provide. The Assembly must also ensure that he makes that advice available to it and that he justifies his decision to maintain a lifetime ban on MSM blood donations when it is public knowledge that he received advice from the Attorney General on that issue in October 2011.

The sitting was suspended at 12.30 pm.

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

1. asked the Minister of Education, following the Health Minister’s announcement about the inquiry into child sexual exploitation, what communication has taken place between the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of Education and whether he has agreed to the inquiry’s terms of reference. (AQT 301/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I have to say that communication between the two Departments has been poor. I have been informed about the establishment of the inquiry largely through the media. I found out through the media that the Minister was hoping to involve the Education and Training Inspectorate. I was informed at the same time as all other Members this morning about the Minister's statement. I now have a copy of the terms of reference. I will study them and respond to the Health Minister in due course.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for that clarification. One of the issues in moving forward is to ensure that the voices of children and young people are included in the inquiry. What can the Minister do to ensure that those voices are heard throughout the process?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The heart of the inquiry has to be the protection of children, particularly the most vulnerable in society: children in care. Clearly, I am keen to play a positive role in the inquiry to ensure that the lessons of the past are learned and that, if mistakes were made, those responsible are held to account. We must protect our children, going forward. My Department has included children in several consultations that it has carried out. In particular, we have used the offices of the Children's Commissioner to ensure that the voices of children are heard. I will study the terms of reference with a view to ensuring that there is a mechanism for the voices of the children affected and children in care to be heard throughout the inquiry.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

2. asked the Minister of Education to update the House on the fundamental review of GCSEs and A levels and to confirm that the recent announcement by Ofqual in England relates to England only. (AQT 302/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I launched a consultation process — I think I spoke to the House on 30 September — relating to a report by the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) on the qualifications that we have here. The recent announcement by Ofqual affects only what happens in England. It does not affect our jurisdiction or Wales, and, indeed, Scotland has its own exam system.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for his answer. Is he confident that we can retain a robust and transferable qualification system in the North of Ireland, irrespective of what happens in England?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I remain very confident that we can do so. We have an ongoing consultation that follows on from the CCEA report, which found that there was not an appetite to follow the example of England at this stage. The consultation has put options to educationalists and the wider community on the direction of travel for our exams. I am very confident that we will continue to have robust exams in our society and that they will be transportable and will hold currency, regardless of where the student or potential employee wishes to travel.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

3. asked the Minister of Education whether he is aware of the most recent report from the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission in Britain and what it has to say about narrowing the achievement gap and the resources that are needed for deprived and low-attaining pupils. (AQT 303/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am aware of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission's first annual 'State of the Nation' report, which details its assessments of child poverty and social mobility in Great Britain and the efforts of the English, Welsh and Scottish Governments in that regard. Although the report does not include an assessment of the position here, the commission's recommendations to raise the bar in standards and to close the gap in attainment for those from low- and average-income families are of particular relevance to my Department. Indeed, they are of particular relevance to the ongoing debate on the common funding formula review.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat arís. Do other factors contribute to the gap in educational attainment as well as the socio-economic conditions?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Local and international studies show that the single greatest determining factor of a child's educational outcome is socio-economic background, but we have to challenge that and resource our schools to face up to the challenge. We must also encourage communities and families to become reinvolved in their children's education. There are far too many examples of families or parents who have had bad educational experiences and are reluctant or are not equipped to become involved in a child's education. We have to correct that, and we have community funding initiatives that enable parents and families to do just that. We want to ensure that the greatest determining factor in a school is the quality of the teacher in a classroom and the quality of leadership in the principal's office. We are lucky to have many highly qualified and dedicated school leaders and teachers in our classrooms, and we must continue to improve on that and learn lessons. At this stage, a child's socio-economic background is the biggest factor determining a child's outcome in our society. We have to face up to that challenge.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I remind Members and Ministers that questions and answers should be addressed through the Chair.

Michael Copeland (UUP, Belfast East)

4. asked the Minister of Education for his assessment of the progress made by Dundonald High School in achieving its set goals and the implication of that on the continuance of the school. (AQT 304/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It is clear that Dundonald High School has made strides forward through a combination of the dedication of the senior management team and the involvement of the local community. I referred to local communities taking ownership of their schools, and that process has clearly taken place in Dundonald. I have to make a decision on development proposals affecting parts of south Belfast and east Belfast that include Dundonald High School. I am deliberating on whether the turnaround in the school has taken place in time to ensure that there is a sustainable future for it.

Michael Copeland (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his encouraging words. Can he inform me what ingredients will be necessary to assist him in taking that decision?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

One reason for the delay is that, during the preconsultation, the Belfast Education and Library Board did not consult schools affected by some proposals in the South Eastern Education and Library Board's proposals. That has now been rectified. Those discussions came to conclusions in late September. My departmental officials are now analysing all the data, and I understand and appreciate the frustrations of the schools involved that a decision has not yet been made. I want to make the right long-term decision that gives certainty to the community affected by such decisions on the location and quality of those schools in the future.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

5. asked the Minister of Education when the new consolidated primary school in south Belfast, encompassing Fane Street, Donegall Road and Sandy Row, will be included in his capital programme, given that another milestone has been reached, with planning permission being granted for the application from the Belfast Board. (AQT 305/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

We continue to engage with the five education and library boards and CCMS on the next announcement on the capital build programme. In January or February, I hope to be in a position to make another announcement to the Assembly about a further programme of builds going into the future. I will keep in mind the issues raised by the Member about schools in south Belfast. I accept that there have been delays in the past and that expectations have arisen in that community about a newbuild programme, but I want to ensure that, whatever announcements I make, it is definitive that the school building will go ahead within a reasonable time frame.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for that answer, which I see as very encouraging. To reiterate what he said, are we now saying that the new consolidated primary school will be in the mix for the allocation of the capital programme stage when it is made? In other words, is our name now in the hat?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

There are a significant number of names in the hat. I assure the Member that, when I make my deliberations about an announcement around the schools, the schools and amalgamations he refers to will be in my considerations. I am acutely aware, through representations from him and other Members, of the need to move on to confirm a building programme for that area.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I missed part of the question; the sound does not seem to be good. Is it an assessment of the sharing of mobile classrooms for P6 and P7 pupils? I do not have an assessment of that matter. If the Member wishes to write to me and give me more detail on the subject, I will happily correspond with her or, indeed, meet her on the issue.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Can we have a question please?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

During the last announcement on building programmes, one of the issues we took into account when considering eligibility for announcement was schools with a high percentage of accommodation in mobile classrooms. I do not have the details about the school you refer to, and I have not finalised the criteria that we will use for the next announcement either, but we clearly want to take our young people out of mobile classrooms and put them into permanent structures.

A significant number of our schools have composite classes in the sense that they share P6, P7 and other classes. It depends on the number of pupils at the schools. It suits some schools to do that because of the numbers that they have, but I certainly do not want to see a large concentration of pupils in any classroom. I want to ensure that the accommodation for our children is fit for the 21st century.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

7. asked the Minister of Education for an update on the Delivering Social Change numeracy and literacy project, including the recruitment of recently graduated teachers. (AQT 307/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The programme is moving forward well. It has been a huge task to take forward. It is an example of how, when the Executive and our Departments work well together, we deliver change for the communities we serve.

As of 25 October, there were 209 full-time equivalent teachers appointed out of a total of 273 teaching posts for the First Minister and deputy First Minister's DE schemes. The schools continue to advertise, and interviews continue to take place to put newly qualified teachers into post. It has been a very successful scheme. I have met a number of the appointees on my visits to schools. Their enthusiasm is clear, as is the delight of the schools in being able to appoint newly qualified teachers.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. It certainly sounds as though the scheme has got off to a very positive start. If that is the case for the duration of the scheme, is it the Minister's intention to extend it?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It is certainly one of the schemes about which I would like to approach the First Minister and deputy First Minister in the future, if there are further funds available through the Delivering Social Change programme to increase the number of newly qualified teachers we are using through the scheme. Indeed, in my Department, I have allocated £2·3 million to expand the scheme for another 36 teachers to be put in place. It is a scheme that has been warmly received by our schools and by the newly qualified teachers. It is a scheme that makes a real difference to young people's lives, and, as I said, it is an example of how, when the Executive work well together, we can make a difference to young people's lives.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Lord Morrow is not in his place. David McIlveen is not in his place.

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

10. asked the Minister of Education for an update on flexibility of school starting age. (AQT 310/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I have asked my officials to come forward with proposals on how we can introduce flexibility into the school starting age. Although we have a very young school starting age, I believe that the foundation stage allows our young people to develop at an appropriate rate in the appropriate education stage for their age group.

Officials are examining proposals for exceptions in the flexibility of school starting age where parents can identify that, in their opinion, a child is too young to start school. One example is that of the Scottish Borders. There, a panel is established and evidence is presented to that panel about the ability and needs of the child and whether they should or should not be allowed to attend school at the regulated school starting age. So, I am looking at that to see whether we can introduce a similar system here so that parents who are concerned about their child's ability to start school at the regulated starting age may be allowed to hold the child back for a year, either in nursery provision or through some form of home tutoring.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

That it the end of topical questions to the Minister of Education. We now move to questions for oral answer. Questions 1 and 14 have been withdrawn. Alex Maskey is not in his place to ask question 2.

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

3. asked the Minister of Education, given the public anger caused by the proposals contained within the common funding formula consultation, will he agree to extend the consultation period. (AQO 4912/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I agreed to extend the consultation on the proposed changes to the common funding scheme for a further week until 25 October 2013. I am delighted with the outcome of the consultation. For the record, over 14,000 responses have been received, 3,000 of those from young people. I thank all those who took the time to respond to this very important consultation. I will take my time studying the responses before announcing how the final changes to the formula will be incorporated and what effect the additional £15·8 million will have on each school’s budget.

The core principle of my proposals, which is to break the link between social deprivation and educational outcome, has not been challenged, even by my political detractors. The fact remains that those schools with higher levels of social deprivation face the biggest challenges. Therefore, they require more resources to tackle those challenges. I have been accused by some of taking money off schools to give to other schools. However, no school’s annual budget is confirmed until my Department does so. Therefore, the moneys that I plan to use are not any individual school's; they are from my Department’s central aggregated schools budget of £1·1 billion and will be, as in any year, distributed under the common funding scheme when confirmed by me. The proposed changes to the common funding scheme for 2014 will, when confirmed, see more money from the aggregated schools budget going to schools with higher levels of social deprivation.

We as an Executive, and indeed as a society as a whole, are either serious about tackling inequality and social disadvantage or we are not. I am serious about it. The Programme for Government commits me to doing so.

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

I certainly welcome the Minister's commitment to tackle social deprivation, but I am at a loss to understand how taking money from St Teresa's, Tannaghmore and Drumcree College, which are in the heart of his own constituency and in an area of social deprivation, is actually going to work.

The Minister mentioned £15·8 million. Is that a one-off injection of cash? How are schools going to respond to their budget the following year? Are they to work month to month, with their hand out and a begging bowl to the Department?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

St Teresa's and Tannaghmore are the two new schools that I am building. There will be brand new buildings for both those schools.

In her question, the Member stated that there is community anger out there.

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

No I did not.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It was something to do with anger; "anger" was in the question somewhere. I do not have the question in front of me, but it relates to the word anger. Maybe people get angry when they meet her.

Throughout the consultation, when speaking to educationalists, pupils, principals, parents and people who are interested in social justice and equality, I have found that they approach me in a rational manner, have rational discussions with me and put across their point of view in a very rational, considered manner. Some agree with my proposals, and some do not agree with my proposals.

As I said in my answer to your original question — perhaps the SDLP is going to challenge me on this — social deprivation is the biggest indicator of a child's educational outcomes. That needs to be challenged.

Therefore, a school with high levels of social deprivation requires more funding to ensure that it has the resources available to give equality to all the children whom it is there to serve. If the SDLP is opposed to that, it needs to state why it is opposed to it. If the SDLP is opposed to my common funding formula proposals, it needs to come forward with alternatives. I read the SDLP's submission to the common funding formula review and did not see any alternatives in it.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I have to say, Minister, that you are not winning the argument out there in the schools.

What will the Minister's attitude be when every school principal at primary and special school level in a constituency rejects the common funding formula on the principle that they do not wish one school to be advantaged over another school that will be a loser?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The scenario that you paint for me is in place. Some of our schools have an advantage over other schools that are at a disadvantage. The schools that are disadvantaged are those schools with high concentrations of children who get free school meals. All the evidence points us towards that. I have not heard an outcry from any of the Benches about that. I have not heard an outcry from any of the Benches about the fact that a child who gets free school meals is 50% less likely to succeed in education than a child who does not get free school meals. That is what should be annoying people and getting them angry. That is what should be concentrating people's minds.

I am not taking money off an individual school to give it to another school. The money is coming out of the Department of Education's £1·1 billion aggregated schools budget. It is a matter for the Department of Education, after consultation, to decide how that money is best spent. The Programme for Government sets very stringent targets for me for children who get free school meals. The Programme for Government tells me that I have to increase the educational attainment of those young people. The Programme for Government, in its opening paragraph, states that we have to tackle social disadvantage. We can produce glossy documents and distribute them to the public. We can talk about tackling social disadvantage or we can do something about it. I intend to do something about it.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Is the Minister still confident of making the required changes before the start of the new financial year?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Yes, I am. It is important that the changes be made. There were 14,000 consultation responses: 3,000 from young people and 11,000 from interested individuals, schools and parties out there. Those responses will all be given due consideration. They will be reviewed to seek out alternatives to, and unexpected consequences of, any changes to the formula and to ensure that the objectives of my proposals are met and do not have unintended consequences.

The figures that schools are currently working to do not take into account the £15·8 million that is to be injected into the system. Mrs Kelly asked whether that is a one-off payment. The funding confirmed for the Department of Education runs up to 2014-15. Beyond that, we will be into negotiations with the rest of my Executive colleagues about funding for education. I hope, and I expect, that those negotiations will ensure that education funding is increased, because if we are to tackle social disadvantage and grow the economy, education has to succeed.

Megan Fearon (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

4. asked the Minister of Education for an update on any planned investments as part of the schools enhancement programme. (AQO 4913/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The schools enhancement programme (SEP) is designed to enable the refurbishment or extension of existing schools. I announced recently that 51 schools have been informed that their applications have been successful at the first stage of assessment. Those projects have been demonstrated to be consistent with emerging area plans. The schools have been asked to prepare economic appraisals as part of the next stage of the assessment process.

Decisions on funding will be made when the economic appraisals for the selected projects have been assessed. It is anticipated that those decisions will be made in the new year. The scale of the potential investment in the SEP underlines my continuing commitment to improving the schools estate.

Megan Fearon (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he explain and outline some of the reasons that 16 of the applications were unsuccessful?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

There were numerous reasons why several applications did not go through. There were established criteria against which the projects were judged. Unfortunately, 16 did not meet the criteria. I am reviewing my capital budget and hope to be in a position early next year to announce another tranche of funding under the schools enhancement programme. It is open to the schools that were turned down this time to reapply if they believe that they will meet the criteria and, indeed, to schools that did not apply this time.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I declare an interest as a member of the board of governors of Ballymoney High School, which will receive money under the schools enhancement programme. However, that means that its newbuild is in serious jeopardy. What assurance can the Minister give that newbuilds will not be displaced as a result of schools being successful in applying to the schools enhancement programme?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Member will appreciate that each case will have to be looked at on its merits. A number of projects agreed under the schools enhancement programme are hopeful of newbuilds, but immediate work needed to be carried out on those schools to ensure that children were taught in a proper environment. It is only right and proper that we make significant investments, even if only for the short to medium period, to ensure that young people are taught in proper premises. A number of schools that have applied to the schools enhancement programme have decided that it is the way ahead for them instead of a newbuild programme. That is their decision, and perhaps other schools will make similar decisions in future. As I said, each case will be judged on its merits.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

When will the Minister produce a transparent matrix of all planned investments and, indeed, the hierarchy of the projects in that matrix?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I would suggest that I have. Each time that I make an announcement on capital build programmes, I announce those that were successful and the matrix against which they were judged. Of course, I understand that, when a school is not on the list, it will be deeply disappointed. There may be a variety of reasons why a school did not make it onto the list, including the fact we did not have enough money for capital build programmes in our schools estate. Something in the region of £400 million from the schools capital programme was taken off us by the Tory Government when they came to power. That has had a significant impact on our ability to deliver newbuild programmes. I would certainly argue that we are open and transparent about how and why we select schools for new capital build programmes.

Karen McKevitt (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I would like to push the Minister a wee bit more on a previous answer in which he spoke about the 16 schools that did not meet the criteria. Is there an appeal mechanism for schools such as St Louis in Kilkeel that thought they did meet the criteria for the enhancement programme?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

No, there is not an appeal mechanism. The criteria are there, and we judge schools against them. I will not go into the case of a specific school on the Floor of the House, but perhaps the Member would like to ask herself why she believes that St Louis in Kilkeel meets the criteria.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

5. asked the Minister of Education to outline his understanding of a bilateral 14-19 school. (AQO 4914/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

While a 14-to-19 school is clearly one that operates within a two-tier system of junior and senior high schools, there is no official or legal definition of a bilateral school. It is a term that is used by schools in their description of themselves but can mean different things for different schools. Some schools that use the term operate a partially selective admissions process for pupils; others use non-academic criteria to admit pupils and stream them on the basis of a test once they are in the school.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Given his answer and the fact that that type of school does not successfully exist anywhere in Northern Ireland, what evidence is there that such a school will improve and enhance educational performance in the Dickson plan area, which is above the Northern Ireland average?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

There may not be another bilateral school for 14- to19-year-olds, but there are certainly bilateral schools, and they are very successful in their delivery of education to all the young people they serve. If the Southern Education and Library Board comes forward with an option for a 14-to-19 bilateral school, all the evidence about whether that school will be able to deliver high-quality education to all the young people it serves will be taken into account before any decision is made.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Does the Minister agree that the educational arrangements in the Dickson plan area do not meet the growing needs of our children and young people?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I agree. There needs to be a fundamental overhaul of the Dickson plan to ensure that all the young people in that area are served with high-quality education and high-quality educational facilities. At present, it creates an inequality in our education system that is completely unacceptable.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

Minister, nowhere else in the world does a bilateral school in the 14-to-19 age range exist, so I struggle to see on what sound evidence such a proposal could have been based. Can you assure us that, when the SELB is forced to removed option A, your Department will not interfere and force a new system until agreement is reached amongst the schools involved?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

That is a big statement: nowhere else in the world does a bilateral school for 14- to 19-year-olds exist. I hope that the Member can stand over that statement. I am not going to argue with her, but it is a very big statement, considering the diverse education systems that exist throughout the globe.

Very few places in the world — I can stand over this — select children and divide them up into different schools at post-primary level. The most successful economies in the world do not do it, and the most successful education systems, which are related to the most successful economies in the world, do not do it, so I am in bewilderment as to why the Member continues to insist that you have to divide children up into different schools, whether it is at the age of 11 or 14. There is no evidence to support her analogy in relation to that.

I note the term the Member used. She talked about when the SELB is "forced" to remove the proposal. That reflects some of the language and the actions in the debate in the greater Craigavon area. People feel intimidated by the actions of those who claim to support the Dickson plan. Parents have come to me feeling concerned that their voices are not allowed to be heard. Speakers at prize-giving nights are heckled from the floor because they dare to express an opinion different from that of those who support the Dickson plan. Teachers, members of boards of governors and principals all face significant pressure not to open their mouth from those who support the Dickson plan. So, let us not use force; let us use reasonable argument to win the day. Let us use evidence to win the day, and let us be prepared to stand up for all the young people in the Dickson plan area rather than the few.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

6. asked the Minister of Education, in light of Sir Robert Salisbury's independent review of the common funding formula, what examination his Department has carried out on alternatives to free school meals as an indicator of social deprivation. (AQO 4915/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

My Department has identified that the most effective indicator of social deprivation among pupils should have the following characteristics: it needs to relate to information that is personal to the pupil’s family circumstances; that information needs to be capable of independent validation; it needs to be up to date; it needs to be capable of being updated annually; and it needs to be easily gathered at school level. Free school meal entitlement is the only reliable measure we have been able to identify that meets those requirements. The view of the independent review panel was that free school meals entitlement provided an indication of the relative concentration of potentially disadvantaged pupils in a given school in a way that no other indicator does. Additionally, statistical analysis shows a strong correlation between the entitlement to free school meals and the multiple deprivation measure. I remain open to hearing suggestions of other indicators that meet the characteristics that I have just outlined. To date, I have received no suggestions that do that.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his response. In light of the recommendation that the Department should look at alternatives, what alternatives has the Department looked at in relation to free school meals? In light of the Minister's response, does he believe that the Warnock factor should be reinstated into the budget?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

One of the elements I am looking at as part of the consultation responses is the Warnock element. That has been raised with me at a personal level by principals and teachers and as part of the consultation responses. So, we will certainly look at that.

Those who stand up and criticise free school meals have, to date, not given me a valid reason why they are ineffective. Free school meals identify the individual child; they identify the circumstances of that child; and they can be monitored on a yearly basis. There have been no comments, apart from the comment about the Bristol university report, which refers to the English system. Our free school meals entitlement is much broader and wide-ranging than the English system. Indeed, the Bristol report states that we should use working tax credits as an identifier: our free school meal system does use working tax credits as an identifier of social need.

Somebody needs to come forward with a reason why free school meals are not the best indicator for the individual child and the broader circumstances. They identify the individual child, and, when you see the correlation between significant numbers of children with free school meals and areas of higher social deprivation, you see that they clearly indicate that they are matched. So, come forward with a valid reason not to use free school meals, rather than what I have heard thus far, which has been rumour, innuendo and people saying, "This one said it" and "That one said it". No one has come forward with a research piece of paper saying that our free school meals entitlement is the wrong way forward.

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

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. Has the Minister considered the South Eastern Regional College's study on measuring social deprivation as something that might complement the free school meals index?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am not aware of the South Eastern Regional College's report on the matter. If the Member wishes to share it with me or to send on more information to me, I will be happy to read it and to take a look at it. Again, it would have to follow the characteristics that I have set out: that it identifies the individual child; that it can be annually reviewed; and that it is information that is capable of independent validation. If those characteristics can be matched and if it matches our ability to identify social need, I will take a close look at it.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. Can the Minister confirm for me — I have this feeling after all the shouting that takes place from the opposite Benches — whether any other political party in the House has presented him with any option other than free school meals? [Interruption.]

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I have studied the five political parties' responses to the common funding formula scheme. None has yet presented me with an option in relation to their —

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Absolute nonsense.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order, please.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

None of the political parties has presented me with an alternative to free school meals. I assume that all the political parties are more than happy to publish their responses. Publish your responses. If the Member across the way says that I am speaking absolute nonsense, people can study his response and ask, "Has he presented the Minister with an alternative?". They will make up their own mind with regard to that matter.

The most important thing is this: no one has been able to come forward and say why they are opposed to free school meals. No one has been able to come forward and give a valid reason why they are so vehemently opposed to free school meals. It is worth noting that, in 2006, when a direct rule Minister introduced a targeting social need formula as a result of work that Martin McGuinness had done during his term in office — it was only a minor increment for free school meals and a minor increment for targeting social need — the DUP objected. The DUP, through its education spokesperson, Sammy Wilson, objected on that occasion as well.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

How do you know?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I read the statement from Sammy Wilson; that is how I know. [Interruption.]

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

There are parties in the Chamber who lean to the right, and perhaps that gives their philosophy around free school meals. However, there are parties in the Chamber who lean to the left, and there are parties in the Chamber who have "social democrat" in their title: they need to come forward and state why they are so opposed to targeting free school meals.

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

Six years of education chaos.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order. Order, Members.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I call Kieran McCarthy.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

May I ask question 7, please?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

What?

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Question 7.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Sorry, I could not hear with Gregory grumbling in the background.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Get used to it. [Laughter.]

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I got used to it a long time ago. There is — [Interruption.]

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order. I ask Members to be respectful to other Members in the Chamber.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I did get used to it. You used to grumble that you would never share power with us, and then you did share power with us. Do you remember that grumble? Do you remember grumbling, "We'll never share power with you"? There you are, sharing power with us.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

7. asked the Minister of Education when he will bring legislation to establish the Education and Skills Authority. (AQO 4916/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

My aim is to have the remaining stages of the Education Bill completed in the coming weeks. However, I need agreement from my Executive colleagues to bring forward the Education and Skills Authority Bill; I cannot do this on my own. If the Bill is not brought forward within the next weeks, we will not reach our Programme for Government commitment to establish ESA in 2013.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he accept that the lack of a fully functional Education and Skills Authority means that area planning is happening on an ad hoc basis? What impact will that have on overall funding for schools?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

No, I do not accept that area planning is happening on an ad hoc basis. The five education and library boards, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS), the integrated sector and the Irish-medium sector are all involved in the strategic planning of area planning, so it will not have an impact on that basis. However, the fact is that ESA is a Programme for Government commitment. I hear comments from Members on the Benches opposite that they are glad that it is not moving forward. Why did they sign up to the Programme for Government? There are two issues that we have found out about today: they are not that fussed on targeting social need; and they heckle me from their Benches, saying that they are happy that ESA is not moving forward. That is another Programme for Government commitment that they signed up to and committed to, and now they say that they are happy that it is not going ahead. [Interruption.]

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order. [Interruption.] Order, Members. Does a Member wish to be named? I call Cathal Boylan.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answers. Will the Minister outline the importance of the proposed Education and Skills Authority?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Education and Skills Authority was designed to modernise the management of our education system, which dates back to 1973. In fairness, we have the five education and library boards, which, through quite difficult times, provided education in our society. That management style is now outdated. Having a 35-person board to run the education system five times over does not make sense. A number of structures are no longer required, and it would be more effective and efficient to bring them under one umbrella. That is what the parties agreed to and the reason that the parties agreed to the Programme for Government commitment to establish ESA in 2013. It is up to them to explain why they believe that to be no longer relevant.

Significant savings are to be made if ESA is brought into play. Those savings can be redirected into front line education. Another topical issue, considering the alleged concerns of some Members about funding going to schools, is that I would much prefer to use the £20 million that we could save annually through ESA in front line education services. Perhaps some Members believe that keeping their fellow councillors on education boards is a more effective way of spending that money.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for that. Will he confirm whether the Education and Skills Authority proposals are part of any internal discussion with the First Minister and deputy First Minister in and around that deal or any other deals that may be proposed?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

That is a question best placed with OFMDFM.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as na freagraí go dtí seo. How much has been spent so far on the exercise to establish the ESA?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I do not have exact figures in front of me, but too much has been spent on it. Not only is ESA in this Programme for Government, it was in the last Programme for Government. When a commitment is made in a Programme for Government, there is a duty on the relevant Minister to prepare for that commitment to be met. Minister Ruane in her time and I have lived up to our commitments under the Programme for Government to prepare for the establishment of ESA. However, if the Members on the Benches opposite are now telling me that they are happy that ESA is not moving forward, we will have to seriously review whether we want to spend any further money on a Programme for Government commitment that those Members clearly do not wish to proceed with.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

8. asked the Minister of Education to outline the response to his proposal to change the common funding formula thus depriving many schools of funding. (AQO 4917/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

No schools have been deprived of funding. There has been widespread consultation on the proposals for change. As I have stated previously, I am delighted to report that 11,000 responses have been received to the main consultation and 3,000 responses to the tailored consultation for young people. I welcome the very high level of responses received. Clearly, it will take time to analyse those and summarise the key points.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Would the Minister like to explain to the parents of children in all our constituencies who are not able to take up free school meals, why, under his proposals, their children should be less valued and have less financial investment than other children, since he is a Minister who belongs to a party that claims to believe in equality? He dodges the matter by pretending that it is not a redistribution, but it patently is, because that will be the impact on existing budgets.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It is a redistribution of Department of Education funds; I have never dodged that issue. To create equality, sometimes you have to target resources specifically at one sector or group. You do not create equality by treating everyone the same. If the Member is serious about social deprivation and about deprivation in working-class Protestant communities, he will agree that the best way out of that is through education. As I have pointed out, a child who is on free school meals is exactly half as likely to succeed in education as a child who is not. If the Member wants to get flustered and angry, he can get angry about that and then he might be able to resolve something.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

1. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning to state whether he will fully fund BA (Hons) Air Transport with Commercial Pilot Training for Northern Ireland students, which has been an issue for a constituent of mine recently. (AQT 311/11-15)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for his question. He has been in correspondence with my officials and me on that matter. He will appreciate that my Department funds UK courses. However, when part of a course is funded or takes place outside the UK, a different funding regime is in place. The overall student support settlement, as agreed by the Executive, is now in place until 2015. We can, of course, look at changes thereafter.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Can the Minister assure me that he will pursue equality of funding with the rest of the UK to prevent further disparity for Northern Ireland's students?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Again, I say to the Member that there are areas where there are disparities between the student support regime as it applies in Northern Ireland and that which applies in other parts of the UK. However, the biggest disparity is, perhaps, the fact that we have frozen tuition fees at £3,500, whereas they go up to £9,000 in other parts of the UK. Therefore, a fixed amount of money is available to the Executive. Choices have to be made about what we can do about other elements of student support. Of course, we can look at all the issues in the future. In a context where more resources are available to us, we can drive out more and more anomalies.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

2. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning about his recent skills mission to the United States of America where, as I understand it, he met companies in New York, Washington and Chicago and to detail what support is available from his Department to companies that chose to invest here as distinct from support from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. (AQT 312/11-15)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for his question. Although it is an appropriate question to ask, I stress that we will discuss Assured Skills during the formal questions.

In essence, my Department works in conjunction with Invest Northern Ireland. We have a very good relationship. More and more investments that come into Northern Ireland are attracted by the existing skills of the workforce and our potential to invest further in skills. That is why we have the Assured Skills programme. A core part of our trip to the United States was talking to existing investors to ensure that things are going well for them, talking to potential future investors in Northern Ireland and showing them the bespoke approach that we take to investing in skills, which gives Northern Ireland a major competitive advantage in attracting investment at present.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Following on from the US mission, are any further visits of that nature planned, perhaps to other countries?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

No formal trips have been added to the diary at this stage, although I anticipate that there will be some follow-up missions to the United States or to other parts of the world to showcase our skills further. We uncovered a large number of leads during our trip to the United States through engagement not only with companies but with government. It is fair to say that the United States Government in particular remain very keen to assist Northern Ireland not only with the political process but with economic issues. There are opportunities not only through company support but through exchanges for individuals where they can focus on their skills and experience different business environments.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

3. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning to provide detail on the recently announced theatre at the South Eastern Regional College in Bangor. (AQT 313/11-15)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am happy to do so. This project was taken forward by my Department, and we have been very closely involved. Members will recall that the project was first mooted in the last Assembly, but, for various reasons, my predecessors in the Department decided that they did not have the resources to take the matter forward. We have revisited the situation and identified the capital resources available for the project.

I am very pleased to say that we have been able to make this important investment, which is good not just for Bangor and the wider South Eastern Regional College (SERC) catchment area but for all of Northern Ireland. We are investing in the future of our economy, particularly the creative industries, which, we all know, is an important growth sector. Hopefully, the project will also be of benefit to the town of Bangor, which has been looking for a theatre for many years. A 350-seat theatre will be made available as part of the development, and, although it is formally part of SERC and is there primarily for the use of students, the college will make it available for use by the community.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his answer and welcome the investment in Bangor, specifically in a theatre, which, as he mentioned, has been required for a long time. What engagement took place with community groups to ensure that they can make use of the theatre and it is not solely a SERC facility but will be of benefit to the wider community and meets the community's specification?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

That is a useful issue to explore. This will be taken forward over the coming months. We expect it to be delivered in a fairly short time frame, and there is the prospect of construction beginning in early 2014 so that the theatre can open in 2015. As I stressed, it is open for commercial bookings via the college. The precise details of how that will operate will need to be taken forward by the college itself. However, discussions are also taking place with North Down Borough Council, which has responsibilities for the development of the arts scene in that community. It is for the council to come to an arrangement with the college on how they can best support and facilitate subsidies for some of the community-based organisations to allow them to access the theatre facilities. I stress that those are dedicated theatre facilities of a proper standard, and it should be a lucrative venue for a range of organisations and drama groups in particular.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

4. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning for an update on his plans to review the careers policy. (AQT 314/11-15)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for her question. The careers policy is held jointly by my Department and the Department of Education. John O'Dowd and I are committed to a major careers review in 2014. At present, the Committee for Employment and Learning is finalising its review of careers policy, and we look forward to receiving that report. In the past, we have systematically gone through Committee recommendations in other reports, and we will no doubt wish to do the same with the forthcoming report.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his reply. What does he believe will be the main themes of the review?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

It is fair to say that almost every time you have a deep conversation with the business community and others about economic policy and skills it goes back to the issue of careers being the foundation stone on which a good economy is built. One of the key outcomes we will want to see will be ensuring that careers advice is much more in tune with accurate labour market information. Although it is always for individuals to make decisions about their future, those choices should be informed by the best information about where the emerging prospects lie in the economy, so that people are fully aware of the opportunities that are available to them.

In preparation for that, we are taking a number of actions. I will take the opportunity to highlight the fact that we are placing careers advisers in industry. We are encouraging companies to offer placements to our careers advisers so that they can spend time with the companies and understand fully how they work and the future opportunities there will be not just for young people but for everyone. This is a good example of how the public sector works with business to ensure that we properly plan ahead for the future needs of the economy.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

5. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning whether he believes that it is appropriate that careers guidance is steered in the direction that he talked about based on the needs of the employment market. (AQT 315/11-15)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for her question. It shows that careers are always very topical, and Members' interest is very welcome in that regard.

I will answer the question: we need to strike the appropriate balance. We need to respect the fact that people will, ultimately, make decisions for themselves. They have that autonomy, and it is not for us to direct them. However, that said, it is important that we encourage people by illustrating where the opportunities lie. Whether we are talking about the Programme for Government, the economic strategy or my Department's skills strategy, we have clearly set out the areas in which we expect our economy to grow in future years, and we know the sectors that are set to expand. They include information and communication technology (ICT), engineering, agrifood and the creative industries. There is a wealth of opportunities for young people, and it is often a source of frustration when we have skills shortages or skills mismatches. We sometimes have high unemployment and, at the same time, employers suggesting that they cannot get people to fill certain vacancies because they have not chosen the right type of subject or have not expressed an interest in a certain career.