Northern Ireland Assembly, 17 February 2014

401 contributions from 71 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you give guidance to the House on a matter of concern? It is whether or not the Education Minister misled the House in a statement that he made on 4 February, when, in response to a topical question, he said:

"I am now in a position where I can confirm that no school will lose any funding as a result of the changes that I have made." — [Official Report, Vol 91, No 6, p38, col 2].

However, Members will be aware that, at the weekend, on the 'Sunday Politics' show, the Education Minister made reference to the fact that he was yet to make up his mind. That was in agreement with what the Education Committee was told on Wednesday by officials. Is it, Mr Speaker, in your power to ask the Education Minister to come to the House to clarify and inform Members what those changes are? To date, they have not been conveyed to the Education Committee and are clearly in contravention with what he said in this House on Tuesday 4 February.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member and other Members will know that, on 26 January 2009, I made a very firm ruling that the Chair does not have any role in, and certainly does not sit in judgement on, how a Minister might answer a question in the House. However, I can understand the frustration of Members when they feel that they are not getting the appropriate answer from Ministers to their questions. I encourage the Member to pursue the matter through further questions to the Minister or through the Committee structures. There are a number of avenues that Members can use to pursue Ministers if they feel very strongly that they have not got a satisfactory answer.

Executive Committee Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I call the Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mr Hamilton, to move the Consideration Stage of the Budget Bill.

Moved. — [Mr Hamilton (The Minister of Finance and Personnel).]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

No amendments have been tabled. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to group the seven clauses of the Bill for the Question on stand part, followed by the four schedules and the long title.

Clauses 1 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Budget Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Committee Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The next item of business is a motion from the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister on its report on Delivering Social Change signature programmes. The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer will have 15 minutes to propose and 15 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other speakers will have five minutes.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the report of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister on its event on the Delivering Social Change signature programmes (NIA 150/11-15); and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to ensure that meaningful and comprehensive engagement with practitioners and stakeholders is central to the development of any future signature programmes.

It is a pleasure as Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to move the motion, which follows on from an event that the Committee held with stakeholders in the Long Gallery a few weeks ago.

Delivering Social Change is the Executive's framework to tackle poverty and social exclusion. The signature programmes were set up to improve literacy and numeracy, to offer increased family support and to support job creation in local communities.

The motion that the Committee presents today follows a stakeholder event that was held in November on the Delivering Social Change signature programmes that were announced by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister in October 2012. For the record, the programmes are as follows: improving literacy and numeracy, led by the Department of Education; nurture units, led by the Department for Social Development and the Department of Education; social-enterprise incubation hubs, led by the Department for Social Development and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment; positive parenting, led by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety; family-support hubs, led by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety; and the community family-support programme, led by the Department for Employment and Learning.

There was a seventh programme, which was announced by junior Ministers in October 2013, with regard to £1·6 million of investment to enhance play and leisure opportunities for children and young people. It is unfortunate that the Committee was not advised of that until after the event in November, as it would have provided an opportunity for discussion on that programme as well as the other six that were discussed at that event. It is unfortunate, but perhaps typical, of the current communication channels between the Committee and the Department.

Although Delivering Social Change is an Executive-wide framework, with signature programmes being delivered by a number of different lead Departments, the £26 million budget for the programmes is allocated from a central ring-fenced Delivering Social Change fund, with governance arrangements and collaboration managed through the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

In September 2013, the Committee agreed to gather evidence from stakeholders on the signature programmes. The Committee recognised the wide range of stakeholders involved and agreed to hold an event to gather evidence on their views and to provide a platform for discussion on potential enhancement of the programmes. The Committee convened an event comprising relevant Departments, non-governmental organisations, members of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and stakeholders from the public and private sectors.

I would like to thank senior officials from OFMDFM and a number of other Departments for coming along and providing updates on the progress of their relevant programmes. I would also like to thank stakeholders for taking the time to come along and to provide very relevant and timely feedback on the progress of those programmes. Of course, I thank the Committee staff for making it all happen.

The stakeholder event was held on 13 November. Discussions covered these four key themes: experience of delivery and implementation to date; challenges and opportunities of the programme delivery mechanisms; innovative ideas to support effective delivery of the programmes; and suggestions for potential future signature projects.

Committee members will agree that, at the event, we had considerable discussions on those key themes and input from our stakeholders. As is so often the case, it is in talking to stakeholders that we hear the reality of people's experiences of dealing with complex and often intergenerational issues of poverty and social exclusion.

Although each signature project is distinct, with its own objectives, a number of issues were common across discussions on each individual programme. Those common issues may have wider implications for the success of the Executive’s Delivering Social Change framework. The Committee, therefore, wished to highlight those issues to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister in order to support the Department in enhancing delivery and outcomes on those programmes.

The common issues included: a reported lack of joined-up working; a reported lack of consultation; difficulties in measurement of outcomes; a need for long-term planning; the importance of identifying best practice and information-sharing; and a need for clarity of message and awareness-raising.

As an aside, with regard to the measurement of outcomes, it was only last week that the Committee heard from officials about gender equality and the fact that they intended to rip up a 10-year strategy because of the lack, largely speaking, of measurable targets. The fact that the focus is on measurable targets there is to be welcomed.

The input from stakeholders allowed the Committee to make a number of recommendations to OFMDFM on the programmes, on the future of same and on additional programmes. Again, I pay tribute to the people who participated in the event. The Committee made a number of recommendations, and I will briefly go through those now.

One of the key issues identified was the perception of a silo mentality or a lack of joined-up working across Departments and agencies that had the potential to limit the effectiveness of the programmes. The Committee welcomes the fact that one of the key aims of the framework is to achieve a level of joined-up working in tackling poverty and social exclusion. The Committee highlights that effective policy design at the outset can include ways to tackle barriers to effective implementation. With that in mind, the Committee recommended that lead Departments re-evaluate the policy design process for the signature programmes in advance of any future tranche of programmes.

The Committee also recommended that lead Departments further consider the establishment of working groups or project teams which include key providers, stakeholders and other relevant Departments, where information can be shared and early resolution of issues can be sought. That early engagement with other stakeholders can facilitate effective joined-up working.

Another key theme highlighted was the measurement of outcomes. The Committee believes that the tools for monitoring and evaluating the programmes should have been clearly defined in advance of initiation of the various programmes. A more comprehensive consultation with experienced practitioners and organisations in those fields would have assisted the Departments in identifying realistic, timely and measurable outcomes.

Stakeholders highlighted the necessity for, in particular, measuring the value added by the signature programmes, whereby evidence should be sought on how effective they had actually been in tackling societal issues, rather than perhaps duplicating services that are already in existence.

The Committee recommends that OFMDFM, as the overseeing Department, works closely with the lead Departments in defining measurable outcomes that can be used to determine the success of interventions, which can then be mainstreamed into Executive policy in the future.

On best practice and information-sharing, the Committee recommended in its report that lead Departments work with stakeholders to gather information on best practice and innovation in the domains of the programmes in order to develop an effective legacy for the sharing of information. The Committee believes that the capture of such information will be vital in the enhancement of current services and the development of future services. We heard clearly from stakeholders that it was not necessary to "reinvent the wheel" where there were existing examples of best practice.

12.15 pm

Another important issue raised during discussions was the need for clarity of message and awareness-raising. Stakeholders told us that there was often a lack of understanding of what each programme was offering and that those providing and those using the services often had very different interpretations of the programmes and their intent. For that reason, the Committee recommended that lead Departments consider how to raise awareness of their programmes. Consistent and clear communication of the programme aims would contribute to greater clarity on the programmes and support greater take-up of the services offered. Branding of the programmes with a clear identity would support delivery partners in highlighting the services offered and facilitate a greater level of signposting. That branding was particularly important to programmes such as the family support hubs, which do not have a physical presence.

The Committee’s report highlights that a communications plan should have been an integral part of the implementation plan for the signature programmes and recommends that that element be included in any future plans for further programmes.

A strong theme emerging from the discussions with stakeholders was the need for long-term measures to tackle poverty and social exclusion rather than quick fixes and short-term projects. The issues are complex, deep-rooted and often intergenerational in nature, and the Committee acknowledges that the outcomes from the programmes will be longitudinal and therefore may not be realised over a number of government terms. The Committee recommended in its report that the Executive seek a cross-party commitment to the continuation of the Delivering Social Change framework for the next mandate in order to secure the longer-term focus on these complex issues.

The last common theme that I want to discuss is an issue about which stakeholders were most concerned and that was identified at all tables as a key issue: consultation, or, perhaps better put, a lack of consultation. That is the issue at the heart of the Committee motion. At the event, stakeholders highlighted the importance of consultation with existing providers, experts and service users to ensure that resources are sufficiently targeted at those most in need.

In its report, the Committee recommended that OFMDFM seek to ensure that effective and timely consultation is undertaken. That would include engagement with organisations, groups and individuals who are experienced in the respective fields of future programmes. In chairing one of the discussions on the initiative on education, it was put to me by all stakeholders that, although the initiative would yield positive results, it would have been possible to yield even better and more lasting positive results had there been a different and more engaged form of pre-consultation on behalf of the devolved Government.

As the overseeing Department, OFMDFM should also seek to ensure that all lead Departments for delivery of the programmes can evidence a sufficient level of consultation. The Committee believes that a greater degree of sustained engagement and joined-up working between Departments and stakeholders can potentially address some issues for the current programmes as they go forward. The Committee also recommended that, in advance of any announcement of a future tranche of signature programmes, should that happen, comprehensive consultation be undertaken with practitioners in all the relevant fields.

I thank Members for their contribution at the event and in anticipation of their contributions to the debate today. I am particularly pleased to see junior Minister Bell here to respond to the motion. I thank stakeholders and departmental officials for their input at the event and hope that the issues raised will be addressed by Ministers and the Department so that the programmes and future programmes have every opportunity to succeed and meet the needs of those people and families facing poverty and social exclusion.

As I await the response from the junior Minister, I am minded of the liaison between the Committee and the Department on the historical institutional abuse inquiry and the legislation, where there was exemplary cooperation between Department and Committee. I hope that we can replicate that here.

Finally, the Committee undertook the event with a view to identifying how any future programmes could be as effective as possible. The Committee has been very pleased with the positive and receptive responses to date from the relevant Departments on the issues that are specific to their programmes and, indeed, those from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. The Committee is heartened to note that its recommendations have all been welcomed, and, indeed, it is pleased to see that, in line with our recommendation, the Executive ministerial subcommittee recently agreed a communications strategy for Delivering Social Change.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for your time, and I look forward to Members' contributions today. I will finish by commending the motion to the House.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

At the outset, I welcome the opportunity to take part in today's debate. Poverty and social exclusion are words that we hear so often within these four walls. I, for one, am very glad that the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister has, in the form of the Delivering Social Change programme, not just spoken about these issues but put in place initiatives and measures to help to tackle the problem.

Obviously, the six signature project programme that was launched in October 2012 is aimed at delivering improved numeracy and literacy throughout Northern Ireland through the provision of nurture units; development of social enterprise incubation hubs; positive parenting initiatives; the creation of family support hubs; and the community family support programme, all of which are delivered from Departments across the Executive. The Committee's role is to scrutinise and ensure that progress has been made. I feel that this report raises some valid points, but, at the same time, we must bear in mind that with such a wide portfolio, which stretches across the entire Executive cohort, there will always be hitches, issues that need to be addressed and lessons that can be learned.

The Committee was keen to engage public and stakeholders' opinions on the programmes so far. Therefore, as the Committee Chairman outlined, on 13 November 2013, it hosted a feedback event for stakeholders. I thank those who took the time to attend. However, I believe that, in these consultation events, it is incumbent on us to drill further down and to go right to the very heart of those who have been helped by such initiatives. That includes those who are obtaining one-to-one tuition and those who have obtained some experience, through the initiative in teaching, that has led to employment. I think that, all too often, we focus on the statutory groups, and although I appreciate greatly and commend them for their input, such a consultation must go further.

During the event, stakeholders raised the issue of silo mentality and said that they felt that it was a problem. I am not convinced of that argument on this particular occasion. Given that these projects do, in fact, take a holistic view of making changes in people's lives, I believe that this is a true joined-up government approach to tackling issues that go right to the core of our society. Unfortunately, we are not just there yet in having every Department buy in to joined-up government. However, I believe that, through time and work such as this, it can become much easier and more achievable.

Further consultation with stakeholders is an important element in the report, and we cannot underestimate the power and value that stakeholders bring to the table. I again go back to the fact that, in the past, there have been many conferences, seminars, pilot programmes and discussions but a lack of action. Delivering Social Change is about tangible initiatives, such as the employment of 230 young teachers to help with one-to-one tuition and to improve numeracy and literacy and the creation of 20 new nurture units in school settings to help to address barriers to learning among children that arise from social, emotional or behavioural difficulties. Through positive parenting programmes that provide guidance, training and information to up to 1,200 families, the parenting programme takes forward additional support to new and existing parents living in areas of deprivation. These types of programmes and initiatives cannot be underestimated. They are vital, and I believe that they can really change a society and address the trap that some find themselves in today.

Measurement was also raised. I believe that that is important, and I welcome the stakeholders' desire to see long-term measurement of the initiatives, bearing in mind that many children will not reap the benefits of the improved numeracy and literacy and nurture units until some years down the line. I believe that the comments from some stakeholders who attended were unfairly negative, with a lack of viable solutions put forward. One line that I am really surprised at is that children are fed up with numeracy and literacy. If that is the thought of professional stakeholders, we have a long way to go in educating them.

In conclusion, I ask everyone around the House to focus on what is being delivered through the Delivering Social Change six signature projects and the £26 million that has been invested to deliver them. The social change framework is how we, as an Executive, will help to tackle poverty and deprivation, and I support the call to note the comments of the report.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for tabling the motion and speaking to it this morning on behalf of the Committee, and I endorse, more or less, all his commentary. I also thank Committee officials for putting a lot of work into making sure that the event was well attended and representative in its attendance. It was a very successful example of how the Assembly, through the Committees, needs to engage with a wide range of stakeholders to make sure that we can follow through, in some substantive depth, the types of policies that we are referring to in the debate.

Delivering Social Change has been described by Mr Moutray and the Chair, and, for me, it is a flagship policy of the Executive, and, although it is relatively early days, it is about changing the way in which many of us work. We all have long experience of talking about a silo mentality in how Departments and other agencies work, and that is true to a large extent. We are talking about a real cultural shift in the way in which Departments will work together, and it is worth reminding ourselves that OFMDFM's role in Delivering Social Change is to drive forward the policy and make sure that it is doing so in conjunction and cooperation with all the relevant Departments. There are six signature projects in the policy and, hopefully, as time goes on, we will add to that and learn from the experience of the early days.

It is important to say that this cultural change has to impact on the stakeholders. I do not necessarily agree with Stephen Moutray that a lot of comments during the evening were negative. There was some negativity, and that is fair enough. Some members of stakeholder organisations were really concerned about duplication. When we refer to the need for clarity of message and so on, that is important. A number of organisations were one step behind the Department, because the Department is basically saying, "We will all have to muck in here and work together." We may not always necessarily pool resources but we must make sure we are going in the same direction, pooling energies and putting whatever resources we have into this collectively. However, that will also have to apply, in the longer term, to stakeholders themselves. A justifiable criticism was raised on the day when people said that the project was opening up in premises very close to their current premises as a stakeholder organisation. We need to be careful that, in joining up the Department's work with key stakeholders, we do not displace others. At the end of the day, if we are just displacing people, that will not give us any added value.

The stakeholder event was very important. It gave us some very important lessons from the ground even though some of them were negative. Generally, most people who attended the event and the people who Members and the Committee engage with on ongoing basis would acknowledge the need for joined-up working, and that has to translate to the stakeholders themselves. Many of them have been working for many years and sometimes in adverse conditions, and we have to recognise that they have been at the coalface for a long time. We should not come in bright-eyed and bushy-tailed to some projects when people are already working on them. This is about OFMDFM working with Departments and stakeholders in a cooperative way and making sure we get the best of everybody's efforts.

One of the lessons from all this has to be about sharing best practice. This means that we do not duplicate and that we work with one another. Duplication was one of the key concerns raised with me at the event. The issue of consultation has been addressed. It is important that we get consultation exercises right, and while I do not think that we should have never-ending consultation, this process is relatively new and challenging, and it provides us with very good opportunities. Consultation on this kind of work should be ongoing to ensure that we learn and tweak our processes as necessary. The event was successful and important. When Committees engage with stakeholders, just as the Social Development Committee engaged with fuel poverty organisations, we can learn an awful lot and then input to the Department.

I support the motion.

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

I apologise that, after I speak, I have to leave for a short while but I intend to return. I welcome the debate and the report, but, most of all, I welcome the contribution of stakeholders. As Mr Moutray said, the event demonstrated the "power and value" of the input of stakeholders into government practice and policy. That is evidenced by the content of the report.

We also need to recognise that the report touches on the lives of six Departments. Given the scale and range of stakeholders' views, we need to take what stakeholders said fully on board. As Mr Maskey said, the people who were present at the event, which touched on the lives of six Departments, are at the coalface when it comes to deprivation, exclusion and disadvantage. Contrary to what Mr Moutray said, the conclusion that we have to draw is that we should take those views fully and absolutely on board.

Let us be very clear. The SDLP perspective is that, if there are good projects that require funding, through this scheme, which is in operation, or through the social investment fund, now that it appears to be in operation, they should get funding. Bad projects should not get funding. When projects are funded, that should be done on the basis of very best practice and process. That is the standard against which we should judge. If there are good projects in the six areas of the Delivering Social Change signature programmes, they should get funding.

We should not dilute or diminish anything that was said by the stakeholders. Measured against any standard, what the stakeholders said was an indictment of the design and processes around Delivering Social Change. They recognised, as we all do, that there are projects that require funding and should get it, but they were withering in their criticism of the design and processes of Delivering Social Change. Evidence of that can be seen in the report's conclusions, which are informed by people's contributions at the event. A common issue, although not particular to any one Department, is the perception of a silo mentality. The report states:

"A widely held view among stakeholders was that there had been insufficient consultation with stakeholders and experienced practitioners".

That is not a partial or selected view but a widely held one. The report also states:

"There were concerns from stakeholders that any future mainstreaming of specific interventions could be at risk as the evidence base to support this mainstreaming would be absent ... There was also frustration that evaluation of outcomes and measurement of success of the Signature Programmes ... may not present a true picture of how effective these Programmes have been".

In my view, the history of this part of the world, the politics of exclusion and the lack of participation by citizens in the life of the state were all meant to have been changed by the watershed moment of 1998 that introduced new standards of inclusion, democratic participation and consultation, as laid down in law under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. How is it that, 12 or 14 years later, when it comes to the design of this process, despite those standards of democratic participation, consultation and inclusion and after a very successful stakeholders' event, the scale and ambition of which was recognised by everybody, they drew that conclusion? The reason is that there are Departments better placed than OFMDFM to do the work — that is the conclusion to draw. Politically, that conclusion should be recognised by all those in government.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

For the best chance of introducing effective, enforceable and workable programmes, they must be based on evidence. That especially includes front line experience via consultation with those who know best practice. As the motion states, that is best done by:

"comprehensive engagement with practitioners and stakeholders".

If the correct people are consulted, we can be assured of the highest possibility of workable signature programmes. I commend all those who attended our stakeholder event in Parliament Buildings recently.

With areas of high deprivation in my constituency, I would like specific concentration on projects that ensure educational attainment for children, with the literacy and numeracy of children being of special interest. Good education gives individuals the best opportunity to attain employment and improve their quality of life. The current scheme benefits 230 teachers on a fixed two-year contract and is improving the literacy and numeracy skills of primary and post-primary children. It is good to hear that the programme is moving ahead, and we look forward to seeing the benefits in years to come. I also welcome the nurture units in schools, which help to break down numerous barriers and aid the greatest achievement of each individual pupil. This means that approximately 480 children will benefit, and 20 teachers and 20 classroom assistants will be employed. I welcome the progress already made, not only in areas that I mentioned but across the board. I look forward to further positive reports in the future.

In conclusion, we should make sure that consultation is very prominent. I commend OFMDFM officials for all the work that they put in to make sure that the recent stakeholder event here in Parliament Buildings was so successful.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I declare an interest as a member of the OFMDFM Committee. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion today. I stress the importance of continuing to pursue the delivery of positive social change. The report supports the work carried out by OFMDFM, and it is enlightening on where some key policy and procedural changes may need to be made when planning future signature programmes. The First Minister and deputy First Minister should be congratulated on paving the way for the signature projects. Ministers with a remit in that area should also be praised for their work to date. After years of conversations, talks and discussions, it was time for some positive action on many of the social problems facing local people. The signature projects have begun to make a positive contribution to the multitude of social issues.

It is clear from the report that the DUP is at the forefront of delivering positive social change for many in Northern Ireland who need help and support. Four of the current six DSC signature programmes are being led by DUP Ministers. Many will have felt the huge benefits of the family support hubs, parenting support and the social enterprise incubation hubs.

I acknowledge that some say that consultation was patchy, but the signature projects did not come through a traditional form of consultation; they were based on hard evidence and engagement with professionals who understand the complex issues. We heard about the OFMDFM Committee consultation event on 13 November that gathered evidence from stakeholders on the signature projects. That gave recognition to a wide range of stakeholders involved and provided an opportunity to gather evidence on the views of stakeholders and a platform for discussion on the potential enhancement of signature programmes in the future. The clear message from many stakeholders was that we should continue to drive from the centre an agenda of cross-effective departmental working that seeks to enhance a multiple objective approach. For example, as we heard, the teacher scheme targets educational underachievement in maths and English, but it also addresses another problem of low employment among our newly qualified teachers. The report is clear in stating that the signature programmes may not be an answer to all the problems but are a collection of cross-departmental actions that are indicative of the new approach of trying to source cross-departmental solutions to complex societal problems.

I think that we should be positive about the developments to date and continue to remember that, although consultation is an important element of future development, we must ensure that action and, indeed, positive development are our primary aims when it comes to tackling things. We can consult, engage, talk and discuss, but, ultimately, it will be our actions in dealing with our socio-economic complexities that the people of Northern Ireland will be most concerned with and will judge us on.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

The Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister agreed that the scrutiny of the Delivering Social Change signature projects would be a strategic priority during 2013-14. The six signature programmes were announced by the Ministers in October 2012. They are the responsibility of several Departments but will be carried out under the management and governance of OFMDFM. As part of the Committee's scrutiny, it arranged a stakeholder event on 13 November 2013 in Parliament Buildings. As other Members said, the event was very successful and a number of recommendations were developed from it. A seventh signature project was added recently, but, as the Committee had not been briefed on that programme, it was not included in the discussions. The additional project seeks to address play and leisure opportunities for children and young people, and some £1·6 million has been allocated to it.

At the stakeholder event, the Committee decided to focus on four key themes to do a stocktake of current delivery, to discover stakeholders' views on how delivery could be enhanced and to identify suggestions for the development of future signature projects. Many common issues were identified, and the Committee forwarded a list of recommendations to OFMDFM to support it in enhancing the delivery of the programmes and their outcomes. The problem areas have been referred to by other Members, which included joined-up working; consultation, which was a major concern; the measurement of outcomes; long-term plans; best practice and information sharing; clarity of message; and awareness raising.

It is no credit to OFMDFM that it has taken years to develop the projects and to see money being spent where it was intended. Unfortunately, that is typical of how the office literally takes years to develop most projects and strategies, and there is a list of strategies that have not been finalised since the Programme for Government was introduced seven years ago. That really is not good enough, and more effort is required to tackle and achieve the targets that have been set. The £80 million in the social investment fund is probably a good example of a failure to deliver. How many mandates will it take to complete the Programme for Government that was agreed as far back as 2007?

Finally, the recommendations show common sense, and the support and advice from stakeholders was much valued and appreciated. Those people are involved in the various areas and at the point of delivery. I trust that the several Departments involved will take the recommendations on board, which are intended to improve design and delivery.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

At the outset, I thank the Chair of the Committee for presenting the report to the House, and the Committee staff, who put a lot of hard work into it. I welcome the debate and the report that resulted from stakeholder engagement. I think that we have to very much take into account what they had to say. They raised some very valid points. One of the issues raised by the stakeholders was that of duplication, which could probably be raised about most programmes. They were worried about the duplication of the various schemes by work that was already being done, and it is important that we look at that.

It is obvious that Departments must work together to ensure the effective delivery of projects across the Province through the Delivering Social Change programme. For example, the social enterprise incubation hubs are led by DETI and DSD, so it is absolutely essential that those Departments work together. I was pleased to hear that Sandy Row in my constituency was selected as one of those hubs. The programme is designed to regenerate buildings that have become derelict while encouraging social enterprise, which will have the knock-on effect of creating much-needed jobs for local people. It will have a real and visible impact on that area, and it is a positive development that is much welcomed by the local community.

Similarly, the nurture units are led by DSD and the Department of Education. It is great that, also in my constituency, Taughmonagh was chosen to have one of the units. It is very positive that a number of teachers and classroom assistants have been recruited. The nurture units have been operational since the start of the current school year. In many primary schools in deprived areas, up to 50% of children have special educational needs. The nurture units will benefit children who find learning difficult because of social, behavioural or emotional difficulties through the provision of individual learning plans agreed by parents and teachers. It stands to reason that DSD and the Department of Education should work together to deliver these valuable projects.

As of 13 November last year, five of the six projects had been implemented. I understand that much work has been completed since then on the incubation hubs, which is very much to be welcomed. The programmes are time-limited, with an end date in 2016 to coincide with the end of the current Assembly mandate. Many people have expressed concern that the projects will simply end at that point and possible future outcomes will be lost. However, the Committee recommends in the report that the Executive seek cross-party support to continue the Delivering Social Change framework into the next mandate. That would allow communities to build on what they have already achieved.

Many times in the past, short-term projects were delivered that, unfortunately, had only minimal impact. However, the Department has clearly taken that on board and is seeking to make these projects sustainable in the long term. For example, the social incubation hubs should be self-sustaining if local enterprises are established within them. For other projects, there is the possibility of mainstream funding if they have tangible outcomes.

All the projects will have a positive impact on families and young people in deprived areas. I commend colleagues in OFMDFM and, indeed, other Departments for the work that they have done, because these efforts will address many issues that lead to poverty and isolation. I thank my colleague the junior Minister for being in the Chamber to respond to this important report.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

The Committee for Education welcomed the announcement of the signature projects when they were launched in October 2012. Of particular interest to members of the Committee were the literacy and numeracy and nurture unit projects. The Committee strongly felt that literacy and numeracy were the foundations for learning and progression at school and that additional support for pupils was therefore timely. Members also welcomed the Department of Education's subsequent decision to expand the number of graduate teacher places on that scheme. The Committee also noted the growing body of research that emphasises the value of the intensive work undertaken in nurture units. As with the other signature projects, the Committee felt that more support for that could really only be something to be valued and welcomed.

Although the Committee welcomed those interventions, members had some concerns about the continuity between those and other similar programmes. Members also expressed concern on the eligibility criteria for participating schools and around the restrictions applied to unemployed graduate teachers. As timescales and funds were limited, it was perhaps unsurprising that the design of the signature projects was somewhat less than perfect. The Committee noted, for example, feedback from the Northern Ireland Nurture Group Network in which stakeholders complained about the absence of continuing funding for some existing nurture units and the lack of a buddying scheme for new nurture units established under the signature project.

Stakeholders also called for, in the longer term, central advice, support and guidance for all nurture units in Northern Ireland. The Committee also noted suggestions from the Nurture Group Network for eligibility criteria that would be based on multiple deprivation measures rather than simply free school meal entitlement, which is something that I will return to in a moment or two.

Additionally, in terms of the literacy and numeracy project, some members commented that the academic criteria served to exclude some struggling children who had made recent improvements, particularly in attainment. Those schools needed the support and had demonstrated the capacity to make good use of the project in that regard, yet they found themselves outside the programme, which was regrettable. There were also issues associated with the literacy and numeracy programme for recently unemployed teaching graduates.

In my comments as a Member in the moments that are left to me, I turn, in particular, to the point that was raised by the Northern Ireland Nurture Group Network, which does commendable work in Londonderry, Coleraine and many other parts of Northern Ireland. However, a concern has been raised, and it was included in the report:

"Area-based approach does not allow for inclusivity of all pupils in need, e.g. not only children entitled to free-school meals, not all children in need of a nurture unit have access to school with one."

That goes to the heart of what is being deliberated on and of what I referred to in the House today in regard to possible changes to the common funding formula. We need to ensure that in any project, whether it is a signature project or any departmental approach to addressing a need, we have not created another element of children who are excluded and cannot access a particular project.

I welcome the fact that, albeit belatedly, the Department of Education came to embrace the issue of nurture. I welcome that and congratulate my colleague in DSD, Nelson McCausland, on the work that he and his Department have done. OFMDFM has subsequently picked up that need and, through the nurture provision in the signature project, is recognising that there is an intervention that can be made through the use of nurture that can be advantageous and beneficial to children in our communities.

I generally welcome the tenor of the comments in the report, and I look forward to the Department's response.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I welcome this opportunity to respond to today's motion and acknowledge the OFMDFM Committee's report on the implementation of the Delivering Social Change signature programmes. We welcome the Committee's engagement with the key stakeholders, and we have read with interest the report and the recommendations from the event last November. The Executive are fully committed to the Delivering Social Change framework, which represents a new level of joined-up working across government to achieve real and long-lasting social benefits for those in our society who need them most.

Delivering Social Change is a new way of doing business. We are moving away from the lengthy action plans that list existing activities and focusing instead on a small number of projects that can really make a difference. We know that Delivering Social Change is not something that the Executive can deliver on their own. We appreciate that it will require partnership working with the wider public sector, with our community and with the voluntary and community sector. In recognition of that, we have been committed to engaging with stakeholders from the outset to seek their views on how best to tackle the complex social issues that face all of us in our society.

Indeed, it was following consultation with stakeholders in 2012 that the 'Delivering Social Change Children and Young Persons Early Action' document was developed. It outlined five key priority areas that Delivering Social Change should focus on in the coming years, including early years and early interventions; literacy and numeracy; transitions; integrated delivery; and joined-up planning and commissioning. Very much in line with the identified key priorities, the initial six signature programmes, announced in October 2012, focus on early interventions to tackle issues before they develop into problems and to give children a good start in life. Let me be clear that our engagement with stakeholders has not stopped following those initial events. We have continued to engage with stakeholders on an ongoing and regular basis.

In June last year, junior Minister McCann and I hosted a two-day conference that was attended by over 200 delegates from the third sector, the public sector and the wider community. Since then, Jennifer and I, as well as senior officials, have attended a wide range of events organised by stakeholders to further raise the awareness of Delivering Social Change and the difference that it is making. They included events organised by Belfast City Council, Children in Northern Ireland (CiNI), the Centre for Effective Services (CES), the Department for Employment and Learning, the National Children's Bureau (NCB) and the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA), to name but a few. Nearly 900 stakeholders attended the events, and that demonstrates our commitment to engaging with stakeholders and our determination to further raise awareness of the difference that Delivering Social Change is making.

As well as continuing to participate in events organised by our stakeholders, we are actively arranging engagement events with interested parties for specific elements of Delivering Social Change. For example, we are seeking the views of stakeholders — including the vital views of children and young people themselves — on our Delivering Social Change children and young people's strategy. We are working with the Departments on the best way in which to assess the effectiveness of Delivering Social Change programmes and have already provided guidance to them for the six initial signature programmes. We are investigating the establishment of oversight groups to include representatives of the third sector and end users. That will be an invaluable mechanism for evaluating the programmes and informing future policy in those areas.

I am pleased to report that the signature programmes are progressing well. Twenty new nurture units have been rolled out across Northern Ireland to help address the barriers to learning among children arising from social, emotional or behavioural difficulties. The units play a key role in improving the lives and educational attainment of our most vulnerable children by targeting the support where it is most needed. Over 200 teachers are now in post in primary and post-primary schools providing additional teaching support to the children and young people who are most at risk of underachieving in English and maths at the critical stages of their education.

The early support is critical when families need it most and when it can have the greatest impact. In recognition of that, a suite of parenting support programmes have been developed. They provide the additional, high-quality intervention support to new and existing parents. In addition, 16 existing family support hubs now benefit from continued support. Work is ongoing to establish the 10 new hubs. The hubs will provide assistance in a friendly, local environment and will help families to overcome the challenges that could otherwise be overwhelming and unmanageable.

From January to June last year, an intervention supporting parents and helping young people who are not in education, employment or training was successfully piloted with 44 families in east and west Belfast, Cookstown, Strabane and Newtownabbey. Positive outcomes from the pilot included family members moving into employment; young people returning to school to complete their GCSEs; family members participating in structured training programmes; and improved school attendance. An upscaled version of the pilot was launched in November last year targeting 720 families in disadvantaged areas.

Before I move on, I will turn to some of the comments that were made. I welcome much of the Chair's positive comment. I noticed that some claims were made about the gender equality strategy. Of course, the strategy runs from 2006 to 2016. We either attempt to implement the changes now for the remaining 18 months or we refocus now to effect the change that is required. I do not think that it is helpful for the Chair, in noting issues that are to be addressed, to slip in a criticism while ignoring the work that is already under way to resolve the most critical issues. I will also correct for the record the Chair's comments and say that the family support hubs have a physical presence and all 10 will be in place by summer 2014.

Members raised the issue of consultation, and it is important that consultation is meaningful. We have extended the children's consultation. We are already under way, and we are assured that the sector's passion, dedication and commitment will come through strongly.

The Chair raised the need to link funding and delivery. Delivering Social Change has sought to link Departments to ensure that the signature programmes integrate with their existing mainstream programmes. Next week, officials will bring together a range of other matters with a view to progress in their own Departments.

Mr Attwood discussed OFMDFM being the lead and a silo. Of course, it is always important to look at the facts that lie behind statements. All six signature programmes are led by a Department with a policy and operation locus in the field and not, Mr Attwood, by OFMDFM. In delivering, Departments work together with us in OFMDFM. However, they also work out with other Departments, agencies and third sector bodies to start breaking down what have been historical silos.

Mr Cree mentioned delay. The additional teachers were announced in October 2012 and were mostly in place by September 2013.

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

Will the Member give way?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I want to address a number of contributions made by Members when you were out of the Chamber. It is only fair that I respond to them.

Looking forward, we recognise that Delivering Social Change is not only about delivery and immediate actions; there is also a need for longer-term planning. Many of the issues and problems that societies face are multifaceted and require a genuinely joined-up approach in and outside government. As we are aware, signature programmes alone will not eradicate issues such as poor health, low educational attainment or chronic unemployment. We need to look, in the longer term, at how services can be mainstreamed.

The signature programmes were intended to have an impact in their own right and act as a catalyst for change and for encouraging and driving change in mainstream services. We do not have unlimited money, so it is crucial that we get the evaluation of the Delivering Social Change programme right. We must identify what works and what measures have greatest impact and focus our efforts there.

An important aspect of the evaluation process will be the dissemination of the learning from the Delivering Social Change programmes. We wholly agree with the Committee's recommendation that the Executive should seek a cross-party commitment to the continuation of the Delivering Social Change framework for the next mandate. In fact, a Delivering Social Change policy project board was established in recognition of the fact that reducing intergenerational poverty can be achieved only by all Ministers working together with a longer-term view to the next Programme for Government period and beyond.

It is intended that the ongoing work to create a collaborative and longer-term social policy framework, aligned with our economic strategy, will be a major contributor to tackling poverty and social exclusion effectively. We believe that, through the Delivering Social Change framework, we can and will make a difference, but we accept that we cannot do it alone. It is only by working together, breaking down the old silos and creating the new partnerships that we can hope to effectively support the most vulnerable members of our society.

I hope that the House will be reassured that many of the recommendations contained in the OFMDFM Committee's report are consistent with the approach that we are taking already. We will continue to develop further in order to achieve the aims and objectives of Delivering Social Change.

I am sure that the House will agree that the work related to the Delivering Social Change framework illustrates a level of commitment by Ministers and Departments to work together in partnership with our key statutory, community and voluntary sector partners. That is what we are about. If this House is to be real and meaningful, we have to ensure that outcomes are maximised and there are improvements in the lives of everyone and, most particularly, our children and young people.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I, too, welcome the debate and the publication of the Committee's report. It is a good example of how Committees have a significant role to play in the Assembly. We have had a positive engagement with stakeholders and have had a positive debate today. It has uncovered the complexities of dealing with poverty and social exclusion. As junior Minister Bell has said, it is important that Departments work together but also that the Assembly and its Committees work together. The number of contributions shows how many MLAs are interested in working together to tackle the issue, so it is important that the policy and framework are put in place to allow that to be achieved as effectively as possible.

We must not underestimate the scale of the problem that we face. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, relative child poverty is forecast to increase by 8·3% to 29·7%, and absolute child poverty is predicted to increase to 32·9% in Northern Ireland by 2020. This means that official targets are unlikely to be met. Under the Child Poverty Act 2010, the targets for relative and absolute child poverty were 10% and 5% respectively by 2020. The challenge is huge. We have to be serious about this, and we have to work together.

I will set out, as the Chair did in his opening remarks, what Delivering Social Change is. It is the Executive's delivery framework to coordinate efforts across Departments to take forward work on priority social policy areas. The framework seeks to coordinate actions between Departments to deliver a sustained reduction in poverty and associated issues across all ages; to improve the health, well-being and life opportunities of children and young people; and to break long-term cycles of multigenerational problems. Delivering Social Change is also intended to complement much larger social and economic policy and programmes operating against poverty.

I turn to the structures that are in place. The framework is being led by OFMDFM junior Ministers through the Executive ministerial subcommittees on children and young people and on poverty and social inclusion. All Executive Ministers are members of those two subcommittees, and, once a year, the First Minister and deputy First Minister co-chair a joint meeting of the Executive ministerial subcommittees. The subcommittees are also being supported by Delivering Social Change programme boards, which are also co-chaired by the junior Ministers, with key Departments represented by key officials in our Civil Service. There is also a Delivering Social Change fund, which is a consolidated and integrated fund that subsumes the childcare fund, the social investment fund and current and future signature projects. According to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, the fund is:

"to respond quickly, and in a flexible manner, to urgent social needs as they arise and address the specific needs of some of our most in need individuals and families."

We have heard in detail about some of the specific signature projects. They are focused on improving literacy and numeracy, nurture units, social enterprise hubs, positive parenting, family support hubs, the community family support programme and a play and leisure programme.

I turn to Members' contributions. All Members recognised that this is an attempt to tackle some of the most serious issues in our community. Alex Maskey recognised that it needed to represent a cultural shift to change the way in which government responds to these issues. Alex Attwood was slightly more critical in saying that it was an indictment of policy design and the silo mentality in our government. He recognised, however, the positive power and value that the input of stakeholders can have into the formulation of government policy. Brenda Hale said that this was an example of action and positive social change rather than just strategic thought, and Jimmy Spratt went into detail about the extent of the problem with regard to special educational needs. It is also positive that the Chairperson of the Education Committee, Mervyn Storey, contributed, which demonstrates that it is positive that we debate this issue on the Floor. I regret that this type of report is not, at times, as forthcoming from the Department. As Members, we have shown that we can deal with these issues in a responsible and joined-up manner, and I would welcome further opportunities to get into more detail on the issues.

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

I thank the Member for giving way — unlike the Minister. The point that I was going to make to the Minister is that, although Departments have responsibility, does the governance and management responsibility not fall to OFMDFM?

If there are failures in joined-up government, consultation or the measurement of outcomes, is that not a commentary on issues of governance and management? Is that not a comment on OFMDFM?

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I take the Member's point. I cannot speak on behalf of the junior Minister about why he failed to give way, but I am sure that he will do that himself. I was about to turn to the junior Minister's contribution, in which he cited a number of examples of delivery, such as the 20 new nurture units that deal with the social, emotional and behavioural needs of children and young people. That is a positive policy introduction. He mentioned the 200 teachers who are working on literacy and numeracy, parenting support, family hubs and the community family programme. I take on board that he said that evaluation will occur, but, a year later, we are entitled to expect responsibility to be taken, and we need to see the outcomes.

The junior Minister was complimentary of the community family programme, which is a Department for Employment and Learning programme that the Minister for Employment and Learning is taking the lead on. He said that there are positive outcomes, with family members moving into employment, returning to education or taking up training opportunities. Those are the types of outcomes and examples that we want to hear about. Hopefully, the junior Minister will also take responsibility for governance in securing outcomes in other departmental areas.

The junior Minister also commented on the new level of joined-up working that the signature projects were to represent. He said that it would bring real benefits and move away from lengthy action plans. From my point of view, there is still some concern about whether moving away from lengthy action plans is wholly positive and well intentioned in respect of securing outcomes, or just about making life a bit more difficult for those of us on the Committee or Members of the Assembly to be able to see in detail where the actions are and follow them to assess the outcomes that they do or do not achieve. We can give people the benefit of the doubt and see what other details come forward.

The junior Minister also mentioned the importance of consultation and the extension of the consultation on the Delivering Social Change for Children and Young People strategy. What he said was slightly lacking in detail, because there was an outcry from the Committee and the sector about the wholly inadequate time that was to be available for the consultation on this hugely significant strategy. It was to run from 20 January to approximately 21 February, but, thankfully, it has been extended to 31 March.

As chair of the all-party group on children and young people, I am sponsoring an event on Wednesday for children in Northern Ireland and will have a round-table discussion on the issue. All Members are more than welcome to attend the event, which was organised at very short notice because of the short notice of the consultation. I think that such events are positive. The report on the event that the OFMDFM Committee hosted shows that there is a wealth of expertise and experience in the children and young people's sector and the community and voluntary sector. As the junior Minister said, the Department must work in partnership with them to ensure that we achieve improved outcomes for our children and young people and for everyone in greatest social need.

The report makes specific recommendations, and the Chair went into those in good detail. A year after the introduction of the signature projects, the report found that there was still a lack of a joined-up approach in government and that improvements in consultation were needed. I cited a very recent example that is still there. A greater focus on outcome measurement is needed. The Chair rightly referred to the gender equality strategy and the shortcomings that we have seen in the lack of outcome measurement on that strategy. The Committee was encouraged by officials' recent work on the gender equality strategy, and I think that there are officials in the Department who are genuinely committed to improving an area in which there has been a lack of delivery in recent years. However, there is a need for long-term planning to identify best practice, and for clear messages and awareness raising.

I had the privilege of chairing a round-table discussion about the positive parenting programme. Some of the feedback that I gathered was that there is a lot going on to tackle poverty and social exclusion in our community, but there is real need to get clear messages out, to coordinate people and to raise awareness of the projects that are available there. As Mr Attwood said, there is a responsibility on OFMDFM to show leadership in that type of coordinating effort.

I will make a few short comments as an Alliance Party Member of the House. In our most recent Assembly manifesto, we stated that there was a need for a statutory duty to cooperate among all Departments. The debate today has shown that there is a real need to consider that type of statutory duty. Significant progress has been made in recognising the need for a fundamental shift in how Departments work together, but I think that statutory duty to cooperate would develop that further.

I was interested to read an answer from the Agriculture Minister recently, who also recognised that that could be a positive addition to government here in Northern Ireland. She said:

"The introduction of a statutory duty on public authorities here will help underpin the existing collaboration that takes place and encourage further joined-up working and where possible, the sharing of resources across government too."

That sharing of resources is another passion of mine as well, from an Alliance Party MLA point of view, as is the need for children's budgeting. I noted with encouragement that OFMDFM is undertaking a children's budgeting pilot. That type of children's budgeting across all Departments would help us as MLAs and would help the public identify how much money is being spent on our children and young people on those types of issues, how well it is being spent and what outcomes we are achieving. I think it is possible to deliver that, and I look forward to hearing more detail about the children's budgeting pilot that OFMDFM is taking forward.

In conclusion, this is no doubt a complex area of policy that we are striving to improve in the Assembly and Executive. It is vital to achieving equality and tackling need across our community here in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Department takes its responsibility seriously in that regard and that, as a result of today, it sees the positive role that the Committee can play in engaging in the areas of policy that it is working on. I look forward to developing that relationship further with it to achieve better outcomes for everyone in Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly notes the report of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister on its event on the Delivering Social Change signature programmes (NIA 150/11-15); and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to ensure that meaningful and comprehensive engagement with practitioners and stakeholders is central to the development of any future signature programmes.

Private Members' Business

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. As two amendments have been selected and published on the Marshalled List, 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.

Before we begin, the House should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive, so, if amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 2.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes with approval the concept of shared education; believes sharing between all types of school could lead to better educational and community relations outcomes; further notes with disappointment the failure of the current Minister of Education to effectively facilitate sharing across the sectors; believes that the current area-planning process has not been conducive to sharing between schools and that the ministerial advisory group report on advancing shared education was a missed opportunity; expresses disappointment at the continuing failure to introduce a shared education premium; and calls on the Minister of Education to take practical steps to promote and facilitate sharing, so that a single education system can become a realistic policy goal.

This is probably one of the most important subjects that the Assembly can debate, and one on which the whole of society's future depends. We have all heard the quotation:

"The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world."

That is, education is the key to making our society the world success that it should be.

After the appalling, disastrous year of protests and the ongoing division over Haass, we — that is all of us — need to show society, not just in the United Kingdom and Ireland but in Europe, the USA and the rest of the world, that Northern Ireland can put in place a total, all-encompassing educational framework that will help resolve our differences. I say it again: a total, all-encompassing educational framework.

The Ulster Unionist Party's driving policy is to put education first and, within that, to push for a single shared education system. The key word is "single": one; solitary — a sole shared education system. The Ulster Unionist Party follows the leadership shown by Lord Londonderry in the 1920s, Sir Basil McIvor and Brian Faulkner in the 1970s, and many others, in wanting and working for shared education. After 90 years, we still have not got there.

Today is a test for all of us. Do we want shared education? The public do: 68% want desegregation of schools and 79% of parents see integrated education as the right way forward. In his 22 October statement, we saw the Sinn Féin Minister show that he wants shared education. Indeed, Sinn Féin reinforces that in its amendment. Almost all the other parties have shown that they, too, want it to some degree. Today is your test. Do you want shared education?

The motion should not be difficult for anyone to accept. We start by noting with approval, by all, of the concept of shared education. However, it is essential that we define what we mean. It is a mechanism, a total concept, of which integrated education is an absolutely key part. It is about creating a wholly inclusive educational environment that focuses totally on education. It means aligning every educational policy towards that one goal, including funding; the Education and Skills Authority (ESA), in an acceptable form; sectors; inspection; early years; the curriculum; exams; higher and further education; vocational and academic education; all other fields; and especially the bête noire that is the present area planning policy.

The area planning initiative must stop now and be completely rethought. It could fit into the overarching aim of a single shared education system if it were completely rethought. That would not be a backward step for the Minister, but a chance for a fresh look after so many other changes have been agreed. The Minister acknowledges that development proposals are written as if the school up the road does not exist, so he is already amending the initiative.

Shared education, as my party leader has often said, can happen totally for some schools now, for others in the next few years, and for all schools in the longer term. We all need to start putting a framework in place that ensures that that will happen so that "the next few years" becomes five or six years and "the longer term" becomes 10 or 15 years. That is our test today. I wonder whether everyone here will put that in place. It is in the Programme for Government, but in such a woolly way that I feel Shaun the sheep from 'Wallace and Gromit' should become the Executive's mascot.

Last year's 'Advancing Shared Education' report set out some excellent recommendations, except the final three. We believe that we missed an opportunity then in not grasping those. We should put in place the first 17 recommendations. Bring on the statutory duty and the establishment of a central unit to drive forward a strategy with targets and goals, regional structures, research and evaluations. However, that needs suitable funding. It needs a shared premium, funding for training, and so much more. Let us not go into all that today, because it is all in the report.

I pause for a second to congratulate the Education Committee and remind everyone that it has not forgotten that initiative and will be holding an inquiry on the matter later in the year. However, it concerns me that we have put that off until later in the year when so much change to policy and action needs to be put in place now. That is why we are having today's debate.

The debate is not just a call on political parties to support shared education, but a call to all involved. Many groundbreaking bodies are already working on it today. I pick out the examples of the Fermanagh Trust and the excellent work that the area learning communities are doing to set examples in sharing. In my constituency, we have Moneynick and Duneane Primary Schools, which benefited from PIEE, Atlantic Philanthropies funding and, of course, the North Eastern Education and Library Board's support. However, the funding has stopped for the latter and is being reduced for the former. That is why this is a timely debate.

We must use all that we have learnt and preserve and expand on it, rather than let it fade. Sharing is not just shared sports games or music lessons, facilities or transport to and from: it is shared teaching, shared teacher training and development, shared curriculum, shared classes, shared parents' meetings and shared governors and trustees. In the future, it could mean federations and groupings of all different types, especially in the sectors. It is everyone from the maintained sector, controlled sector, voluntary sector and library boards: this comment applies to all. Throw off your shackles and free yourselves — no more '12 Years a Slave'. Mark Twain said:

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."

In the DUP amendment, we see just two areas of sharing being tackled. We need more. There is much to be praised in Together: Building a United Community. However, it is just one part of the whole jigsaw. There is much in the signature projects, too. We praise them. However, we need them to really happen. That is not really relevant to this debate: nothing to do with sharing. Indeed, I am concerned as to whether the DUP really gets shared education. Its leader said that segregated education was a form of benign apartheid. Do they get it? They talked about a commission on shared education, yet not one of the education and library boards has ever been contacted about it. We need courage, determination and resolution to put that in place, but as part of a single shared-education drive — starting today, a total, all-inclusive drive.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

No. You will get your chance in a second. Thank you.

We see much in Sinn Féin's amendment No 2. There is much that we can agree with, especially the opening sentence:

"the current area-planning process must be conducive to sharing between schools".

It is not. We need to see it changed. Where we really differ is not expressed in words; it is in the dogma. Sinn Féin wants everyone to have the same excellent education by making the opportunities to all equal. We also want everyone to have an excellent education, but we want everyone to be given equal opportunities to excel in every field they can. Sharing the best that is — or, in some cases, was — in the grammar system is the way forward, not the divisive battle that each of those party's policies support. Today, what I call for is bigger than all of that.

Let us explore the suggestions by Professor Borooah and Professor Knox as part of the whole, total drive towards a single, shared education system. To all of you: throw off your shackles, drop your amendments, support the main motion as it includes all of your aspirations, catch the wind of change and give your children the chance to explore, dream and discover. The UUP proposes the motion and opposes both amendments.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move amendment No 1:

Leave out all after "outcomes;" and insert

"welcomes the initiative by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister in progressing this work through the signature projects; and calls on the Minister of Education to actively assist in this work through the development of shared campuses so that a single education system can become a realistic policy goal."

At the outset, I have to say to the Member who moved the motion that I in no way feel that I am in shackles and that somehow I have to shed those shackles to become subservient to another political party. He does himself, his party and his cause no good by coming to the House trying to paint the picture that somehow the only answers and solutions are to be found in his party's approach to the issue. I will deal with the detail of that in a moment or two.

At the commencement of my remarks, let me, in supporting my party's amendment, pay tribute to certain schools. We very often come to the House and talk in general terms. We somehow forget that there are teachers, schools, governors, parents and organisations who work tirelessly, year after year after year, to ensure that their schools are inclusive, shared facilities.

I have to pay tribute, for example, to Ballycastle High School and Cross and Passion College in my constituency. Way before it was ever popular to use the phrase "shared education", those schools recognised their geographical location and the challenges that they had. Did that prevent them from trying to bring forward something that was of meaning and value to their pupils and community? No, it did not. I pay tribute to them today. I trust that the Minister will very shortly be able to announce funding that will be of benefit to Ballycastle High School and Cross and Passion College. That will, for the first time, show them recognition for the work that they have done.

In coming to the amendment, let me also pay tribute to my party leader. I can say, without any fear of being contradicted, that it was he who made those comments when he went to Castlereagh, despite everybody, from the bishops down, attacking him because his words were somehow seen as an attack on Catholic education. Let us remember that those comments were made. Let us also remember that a week after my party leader made those comments in Castlereagh, we heard a different tone from the bishops.

Let us tease out the issue by, for example, looking at the statement made by the Education Minister back in October 2013. He said:

"shared education is not a bolt-on or optional extra. It is fundamental to delivering good schools and central to my vision that every learner should achieve his or her full potential." — [Official Report, Vol 88, No 8, p1, col 2].

That is to where we want to ensure that we move in the weeks, months and years ahead.

The mover of the motion rightly paid tribute to work done by the Fermanagh Trust, the North Eastern Education and Library Board, the PIEE project and Queen's University and the excellent work it has done.

Here is where we have an issue. Shared education means all things to all people at certain times of the week or year, but it all depends on when you ask and quiz them. When it comes to other sectors, it is interesting to note the responses that we in the Education Committee sometimes get. The Member, in moving the motion, referred to Moneynick and Duneane, and he will be aware that we have a letter from Bishop McKeown about shared provision for Moneynick and Duneane. It is amazing that said gentlemen was not aware of any of the new arrangements between the two primary schools. Bishop McKeown went on to say — this sometimes goes to the heart of organisations that have vested interests — the following:

"We are all aware of the proposed collocation of separate schools on the Lisanelly site. However, since we have never had to reflect on the issue of a shared building, NICCE"

— the Northern Ireland Commission for Catholic Education —

"has currently no views on the design of such shared education arrangements."

Does that not give you an insight into an organisation that reportedly wants to be inclusive and to extend its remit for how it interacts with other elements of the community? Does that not give you an idea of what its real view of sharing is?

Let me take it down to a level that is a little bit more personal. I declare an interest as a member of the board of governors of Ballymoney High School and as a past pupil of Armoy Primary School. As everybody knows, Armoy is in the heart of my North Antrim constituency, and it has been involved with the PIEE project for a number of years. The PIEE project gave Armoy, St Olcan's, Barnish and Straidbilly — the four schools involved — an opportunity to share. In fact, St Olcan's and Armoy had a shared teacher. That was welcomed by the boards of governors at both schools and the community, because it was not a threat to either.

Depending on the figures that you use for the sustainability of a school — we all have concerns about the Bain figures, but let us set that issue aside for the moment — if you accept that there was to be further sharing and collaboration with Armoy, you would expect that those with an interest in the process, such as a governing body, would want to see that being progressed.

I have to say that, to date, it has been regrettable that others, not the two schools, St Olcan's board of governors and Armoy Primary School board of governors, have been making noises about where sharing should go. I think that that goes to the very heart of the issue. The Member who made that proposal today made the comment about everybody coming up to the plate on the issue. It is about people stating clearly what it is that they want in future provision.

I will give another example. It is on shared campuses, which we refer to in our amendment. Let us go to Lisanelly. There has been a lot of talk about the Lisanelly project, and the Minister has allocated a lot of money to it. However, we need to be absolutely sure about it, and there needs to be no doubt, no mist, no fog, no confusion, no doublespeak and no double standards so that whoever moves onto the Lisanelly site moves there on the same basis, with the same arrangements and with the same contractual arrangements for ownership of the site so that none can claim advantage over another. I pay tribute to the fact that a special school is moving onto the site in the first place. Special educational needs is showing the way in shared education; special education has never been in a position where it is a maintained or an integrated provision. It is a controlled — a state — provision, and I pay tribute to those in special educational needs, who, despite all the problems and challenges that they face, continue to deliver for our young people and children who have particular challenges. It is a light to us, in a sense, that a special school will move first to the Lisanelly site.

The Minister knows my view on this already. We watch with interest to see how others will follow onto the Lisanelly site and whether they will follow on the same basis and with the same criteria. I beg to say that that may not be the case.

No doubt, others will say much more as we progress —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

No, I am concluding.

In conclusion, there is undoubtedly an appetite in our community to ensure that education continues to flourish and to progress to the benefit of all our young people, not just some.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I beg to move amendment No 2.

Leave out all after "outcomes;" and insert

"believes that the current area-planning process must be conducive to sharing between schools and that the ministerial advisory group report on advancing shared education provides an opportunity to advance these aims; calls on the Minister of Education to introduce a shared education premium and to take practical steps to promote and facilitate sharing across the sectors and the entire education system."

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to debate this very important issue and to move amendment No 2, which is in my name and that of my colleagues.

There has been an increasing interest in our education system and the wider public on the growth of shared education projects. So, it is important that we as an Assembly play our part in that growing conversation.

With that in mind, we ask Members to support our amendment. We feel that, unlike the motion, which does not sufficiently recognise the emerging success of sharing education projects or, indeed, the commitment and dedication that various schools, governors, teachers and the Minister has to shared education projects, our amendment acknowledges that appetite for increased sharing between our schools. We also feel that, given the appropriate support and investment, we should see a flourishing of sharing across the system in the months and years ahead. That was laid out specifically in commitments 71, 72 and 73 of the Programme for Government, which specifically mention shared education and call on the Minister to ensure that:

"all children have the opportunity to participate in shared education programmes by 2015"

and to:

"Substantially increase the number of schools sharing facilities by 2015".

On the back —

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go ahead.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Is the Member able to provide us with an update on how the Department of Education is performing against the targets that he outlined?

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Member, but I am not a spokesperson for the Department, so I will leave that update to the Minister in his statement later.

As the Member rightly pointed out, we had the launch of the shared education campuses programme in January, which will see the development and delivery of 10 shared education campuses locally. However, as outlined, I suppose, by the previous Member to speak, government is not leading the way on this as much as local schools, communities, teachers and, indeed, families, who have already invested a huge amount of work in sharing in our education system. Again, we, as a party, do not feel that the UUP motion pays significant recognition to those who are leading the way in sharing education. I point to a local example in Ballynahinch, where St Colman's High School and Ballynahinch High School have grasped the nettle and taken the lead to deliver the entitlement framework. I again pay tribute to the schools involved.

As has been said, the centre for shared education at Queen's University and the Fermanagh Trust continue to lead the way on shared education in many respects. The Committee will visit Fermanagh in the months ahead to have a closer look at how things are progressing in the county. Indeed, one latest example was a teacher exchange scheme that facilitated a number of primary schools exchanging teachers for one day a week to assist with curriculum delivery. It was a great success, as it enabled schools to access a wider range of teaching expertise and resulted in improved educational outcomes for many young people across Fermanagh. Moreover, given the rural dynamics of many of the participating schools, the growth of such schemes throughout other rural areas of the North could be of huge benefit.

The growth in, and advancement of, shared education is, perhaps, the most significant development in education policy in the past number of years. Importantly, it is also one of the most sensitive areas of change. If this process of change is to be successful and sustainable into the years ahead, we must all embrace the process equally. There must be a shared readiness to engage between schools, sectors and political parties.

When we stand in the Chamber and talk about bringing pupils and schools together, we must always bear in mind that we are talking about hugely complex issues of identity and ethos. We are asking local communities to buy into a process of change while balancing community values and expectations. So, when we discuss the need for increased sharing and demand it be delivered as soon as possible, we should keep these very sensitive dynamics in mind.

Today, we are faced with an education system that is built upon having many different types of schools, each with their own rights and entitlements and each with their own proud identity and supportive community. For many across the North, this choice in our system is a great strength. However, many others see things differently. They believe that such choice in our system reflects social and communal divisions, scars of conflict that need to be addressed as soon as possible. Although many sympathise with either narrative, it is important that we focus on the educational case for sharing.

This debate, and all future conversations on the advancement of shared education, must not be allowed to get sidetracked. Effective educational sharing must have an impact on standards, outcomes and the learning experience on our young people. There can be no doubt that to raise standards and improve outcomes our schools need to change. How we think about and understand education in the 21st century must change, and increased sharing within the system is undoubtedly central to such reform. That is because choice is important; we all accept that.

However, choice must not come at the expense of a good school, a good education and equal opportunity. Indeed, such inequalities in our system are bad for children and for society. Such inequity is damaging and unnecessary and we all have the power to eradicate it, if the will exists. Sharing is needed: not merely in the ethno-religious context that we are all so used to hearing about but within parameters of socio-economics.

If are to build a truly shared education system and society as a whole, we must move beyond the traditional narrative of religion and ethnicity and tackle the ever-enduring issues of social inequality and elitism. We need to challenge those who claim to support integrated and shared education yet support socio-economic separation in our system. How can religious division be wrong on the one hand yet economic division is acceptable on the other? I call on the Minister to introduce a shared education premium in the months ahead. I also urge him to continue to actively oppose and remove any barriers to integration in our system, be they religious or socio-economic.

Finally, I turn to the issue of the single education system, which I believe is too important to be a throwaway line at the end of any motion, particularly one on shared education. It is a very important programme of reform in its own right. A single education system is certainly a goal for many of us, but those of us who advocate such a policy goal have a responsibility to lay out the vision. Where is the detail in the Ulster Unionist contribution today? Where is the detail in the Democratic Unionist Party's contribution today?

We must all travel this journey together, yet the two unionist parties throw that line at each other without ever presenting a plan for change to inform us all of what this would look like. Indeed, when we discussed issues such as ESA, a body that would undoubtedly help to shape a united and cohesive system, the two unionist parties have merely sought to block and stall. They appear unwilling to act as a positive force for change.

Any future development of a single education system must be built on the protection of rights and parity of esteem for all citizens. Complex issues of ethos, identity and community values need sustained and sensitive contemplation. When unionists run away from a bill of rights and a sexual orientation strategy, and given the irrational antipathy towards Irish-medium education and Irish language rights and the complete failure to tackle socio-economic inequalities and divisions, how could anybody blindly accept the throwaway line at the end of motion?

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

I welcome today's debate on shared education. We must think about where shared education happens. It happens in our schools across the North, and I want to highlight and acknowledge the great work in schools that are really advancing shared education. A wide range of schools adopt a shared system for learning and are real assets to our education system. Across the North, there are examples of good practice, with schools working together and sharing resources between and across the different sectors.

Twenty-six schools have already benefited from the primary integrating/enriching education project, which was funded by the International Fund for Ireland and Atlantic Philanthropies. We listened to the benefits of that project in Committee recently, and I was struck by the sharing of education and the fact that it led to better community cohesion. The Fermanagh Trust project, which Members mentioned, demonstrates good practice that could be rolled out to other areas. A number of primary schools, for example, engaged their teachers for one day a week to assist with curriculum development in their partner school. That enabled schools to access a wide range of teaching expertise and resulted in improved educational outcomes. The scheme could be of particular benefit to small rural schools throughout the region. The practices highlighted in Fermanagh should be incorporated into the mainstreaming of shared education and made available to all schools.

If truth be told, for shared education to be effective, we must bring our communities with us. Different communities are at different places with the level of acceptance of shared education. That is the reality. I can go back to the early years of education for mutual understanding (EMU) and our attempts to bring young people in Kilkeel from two traditions together for a soccer match or a ramble in the Mournes. Today, that has moved on considerably but still has plenty to do to catch up with Limavady High School and St Mary's, which the Minister visited recently. There are various examples of good practice that demonstrate how pupils from different backgrounds benefit from being educated together. The learning partnerships are a good example of that. However, we can do much more to ensure that all schools work collaboratively.

Shared education can become an opportunity for keeping education alive in our rural communities, be it cross-community or cross-border. For rural schools under threat of closure, shared education offers a viable and practical alternative to closure. We believe that it is perfectly possible for schools to provide a quality education without meeting the enrolment threshold if a school engages with a neighbouring school. That is a practical solution, and it can help to improve community cohesion in remote areas.

The SDLP recognises the advances made in shared education and urges the Minister to ensure that the promotion of shared and integrated education in all varieties and forms is a priority for the Department. The Minister must avoid any attempt to prioritise one form of education system over another. We should work together to ensure that a diverse range of schools is supported and empowered.

The last line of the DUP amendment and the Ulster Unionist motion refer to a single education system, but if we are to move shared education forward, we must focus on achievable short-term goals. We must have more sharing. We should work towards supporting a diverse range of schools and helping them to deliver a quality standard of education for all our young people. I agree with the Sinn Féin amendment that efforts at area-based planning to date have not been conducive to developing shared education, and I hope that a shared education premium will become a reality.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the Member give way?

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

Yes, I will.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the Member, like me, acknowledge the enormous contribution that schools with a faith-based ethos make to the progression of children's education?

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

Thank you for that intervention. I certainly acknowledge it. The point that I am making is that, as we move ahead with shared education — this came across very strongly in a recent presentation to the Committee — we must bring our communities with us, and we must protect the ethos of schools.

Building a truly shared future must include prioritising respect for the rights and choices made by parents. The ethos of various communities and schools must be protected as we move forward. I see great opportunities with the Lisanelly campus and similar proposals. We must continue to strive for the highest standards in learning and give our young people access to a broad range of high-quality educational institutions. We fully support and recognise the merits of promoting shared education. In doing so, it is also important to acknowledge the particular ethos of participating schools.

A number of commitments were made in the Programme for Government to help to advance shared education, with specific undertakings to:

"Ensure all children have the opportunity to participate in shared education programmes by 2015".

Secondly:

"Substantially increase the number of schools sharing facilities".

Shared education can help us to maximise resources and improve community relations.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I was remiss. I ought to have informed the Member that he had an extra minute. Have you anything further to say quickly?

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

No, thank you.

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

1. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel for an update on the equal pay settlement for staff in the PSNI, Department of Justice and Northern Ireland Office. (AQO 5542/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Members will remember that it was clearly established in court that there is no legal liability for any payment in relation to equal pay in the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Department of Justice or, indeed, the Northern Ireland Office. As I said before, I understand the genuine feelings that people have on the matter. I am working hard to find some way in which those feelings can be recognised. Since I last spoke on this issue in the Assembly, I have spoken with the Minister of Justice, and officials from both our Departments have met. I am consulting with officials to investigate whether there are any possible solutions to the issue that could be considered by the Northern Ireland Executive.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his answer. He outlined that there was no legal requirement on his Department. Equally, however, in the past, there have been situations, such as with the Presbyterian Mutual Society, where there has been no legal obligation, but there has been a moral obligation on the Executive to act. Does he not accept that, in this case, because of the inequalities that exist in our current Civil Service, there is such a moral obligation?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I do not accept that there are inequalities. If there were inequalities in pay, I would expect the requisite Department, whether the Department of Justice or any other, to come forward with a case of an unequal pay situation needing to be rectified. He is right about the language I have used: I have stressed that, although there is no legal liability and, therefore, it is not an equal pay issue, even though we continue to refer to it as such, there is a moral responsibility on me to investigate opportunities or potential solutions for a recognition of the moral responsibility that may well be there.

I appreciate that the Member is not asking me to step outside the legal responsibilities that I or Executive colleagues have. However, looking at the news over the weekend, if the Member's party — the Green Party — had its way, perhaps it would add the extra stipulation that anybody who denies the existence of climate change should not be paid any money, whether moral or legal.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Obviously, Minister, in the opinion of many of the workers concerned, there has been a lot of toing and froing in this case for far too long. The Minister has touched on this already: how has he sought the support of the Executive for a financial resolution in this case? In the coming weeks and months, what plans does he have to bring further cases to the table?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I am not sure that I agree with the language of "toing and froing", but I accept that there is perhaps a frustration. I sense that frustration from talking to some members of staff affected by the issue. I certainly see it in correspondence that I receive from them, as well as from talking face to face with them. At this stage, I have sought to engage directly with the Minister of Justice, who obviously has responsibility for the greater volume of staff, to seek a solution that he and I can agree on. The next natural step after that is to go to the Executive to seek agreement and then hopefully deal with the issue as a result. I am sure that the Member appreciates that, given the circumstances, Executive and cross-party approval is essential. In that respect, I hope that, if and when the Minister of Justice and I bring forward a solution to recognise the moral responsibility, it will get full support from all parties represented on the Executive, including the Member's party.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Is the Minister, like me, astounded by the brazen effrontery of the question from the Sinn Féin Member? He calls for additional money to be spent on equal pay settlements for those in the PSNI, and, at the same time, that party is squandering £5 million a month that could be used to make payment, but it prefers to give it back to the Government at Westminster. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his very pertinent question. He is absolutely right. It is not the first time in the past week and I am sure that it will not be the last time today that Members opposite will press me to make finance available for all sorts of projects in their constituencies or across Northern Ireland. However, the final leg of a resolution to the issue of equal pay for staff working in the justice family, if we can devise a solution, will be the need to find some money to pay for it.

I know where there is £15 million that could not only be used to fund this issue but could be given to colleagues in the Executive like the Health Minister, to relieve the pressures that the health service faces, or the Minister of Education, to relieve pressures in the education budget. Right across the system, all Ministers face pressures; they speak to me regularly and bring issues to the House. Members know that departmental budgets are under pressure, but £15 million is being squandered and handed back to Westminster this year. That will rise to £105 million next year, and a total of £1 billion over the next five years. That is money that we can ill afford to lose, yet it is being handed back and not being put to any good use.

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

I thank the Minister for his answers. I do not want to quibble with the Minister. He said that it was not an equal pay issue in the legal sense, and one can accept that. However, it is certainly an equal pay issue for those who are negatively affected. Will the Minister clarify the position that he reached with the Minister of Justice, if he did, indeed, reach a position with him, on how to bring this to a happy conclusion?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I would have thought that a learned gentleman like the Member opposite would have appreciated that it is not a legal issue. Strictly speaking, there is no liability in a legal sense for the Executive to deal with.

My discussions with the Justice Minister have not reached a conclusion and are ongoing. I am happy to continue to discuss it directly with him, although officials from both Departments continue to engage to find some way in which the moral argument could be recognised. I am happy to continue to engage with the Minister of Justice and for engagement to take place between officials from both Departments. In fact, I am happy to engage with anybody, and, later this afternoon, I will engage with NIPSA on the issue. They also have a responsibility, having contributed to the raising of expectations on the matter over the past number of months by organising something of a campaign that called on me and other Ministers to solve the problem, as they see it. They also have a responsibility and a duty to come forward with ideas on how it might be resolved, and I look forward to hearing that from them later this afternoon.

Michael Copeland (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his answers. I know that it is a difficult problem. Will he confirm whether the money required to settle this non-legal moral issue, which essentially it is, has been identified? Have any sums towards that been included in the current budgetary arrangements? If so, will they be ring-fenced for the purpose for which they were intended?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I welcome the Member's view that resolving the issue is neither a simple nor straightforward matter. I hope that an understanding across the House that it is not simple or straightforward will result in some patience and tolerance among Members, as well as the members of staff who are affected.

No ring-fenced money has been put aside to deal with the issue. Money was set aside for it in the past, should it have materialised that the Executive had a legal responsibility to settle it. That money is no longer in place. It is for the Executive to look at where money for resolving it might come from, if and when they decide to move forward with a solution. Our job in finding that money is not made any easier — in fact, it is made considerably more difficult — when we see the squandering of £5 million a month through not progressing with welfare reform.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

2. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to detail what progress has been made on improving the public procurement process. (AQO 5543/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. In its role of supporting the procurement board, the Central Procurement Directorate has made significant progress in improving public procurement processes by making them less bureaucratic and more SME-friendly. A number of improvements have been put in place, such as the publication of guidance notes on how to overcome barriers that may prevent local businesses and companies accessing procurement opportunities; making tendering opportunities easily available via a single portal; and simplifying the procurement process for lower-value procurements that are not subject to the same level of European legislation. The directorate is working closely with construction and business representatives, and further areas being addressed include the standardisation of tender documentation and terms and conditions of contract; setting qualification requirements at levels that are proportionate to the contract; and introducing project bank accounts for construction contracts. The measures, many of which address the recommendations arising from the Finance Committee's inquiry into public procurement, are making it easier for Northern Ireland suppliers to participate in tendering opportunities. I look now to Executive colleagues to ensure that their Departments and arm's-length bodies implement those improvements with help and guidance from CPD.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for the responses so far. What work has gone on between the Central Procurement Directorate and business organisations with the aim of improving procurement processes?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

It is important that the Central Procurement Directorate and I, as the Minister responsible for public procurement policy in Northern Ireland, listen to concerns or positive suggestions from representatives of particularly the construction industry but right across business. My predecessor had an open door policy, and I have continued that in encouraging people who have issues around public procurement to come forward and raise them directly with me or with CPD. We will not be found wanting in coming forward with solutions where and when we can.

The CPD has been working closely alongside industry to address problems that it raised with us. For example, we have been working closely with the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) focusing on reducing bidding costs, improving consistency across centres of procurement expertise (COPEs), reducing information demands in tenders and standardising documents. The outcomes of that work were publicised at a public procurement conference that I attended at the end of January.

With the construction industry specifically, we have been working on developments on construction procurement, the most recent of which are the standardisation of pre-qualification questionnaires and the development of project bank accounts. We have also been working with business on the dissemination of public procurement policy and the review of the delivery of procurements across business sectors.

I very much support joint working between business and government in improving procurement because it is so important to developing and growing the Northern Ireland economy.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I thank the Minister for his answer. In light of some of the procedures in place, would the Minister consider a specific review? There are contracts worth less than £10,000, yet tenderers are expected to have an income of £2 million. Many small businesses feel that they are not in the range of earning £2 million but are ruled out of tenders of less than £10,000. Would he consider a review of such incidences?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

As the Member will know, procurement is a heavily regulated area, not least as a result of European directives handed down from national government that we have to implement at regional government level at Stormont. There seems to be positive progress in respect of the new set of EU procurement directives, which seem to be a little more responsive to and reflective of criticisms not just from Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom or Ireland but that the whole of Europe has been levelling against procurement across the European Union.

One issue that I think they specifically want to look at to assist small businesses is the turnover cap that prevents buyers from setting turnover requirements at more than twice the contract value. I can recall cases where requirements for the likes of insurance or indemnity insurance were unnecessarily high and above and beyond what many small firms could tender for. Without trying to twist or bend the rules in any way, we have always to be mindful in public procurement that our economy is dominated by microbusinesses and that, as we want to encourage them to avail themselves of public procurement opportunities, we do not set barriers of whatever nature so high that they will never surmount them. It is an area that we are mindful of and where we have taken action, and it is an area where, I hope, the new EU procurement directives will assist us in taking further action.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Would the Minister care to comment on the impact that year-end flexibility or the lack of it has on the public procurement process and whether the public get value for money?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I regularly hear the criticism from Ministers that not having end-year flexibility does not allow them, particularly on the capital side, to plan sufficiently far in advance. We are all aware of the old criticism that year-end expenditure is not necessarily of the same value as stuff that is planned further in advance. The problem is that we work within the rules that the Treasury sets us, which do not allow us to have end-year flexibility. It is not called "end-year flexibility" any more, it is the budget exchange scheme. In respect of capital carry-over into the next year, we have a maximum of £10 million for the entirety of the Executive's capital budget. That is out of a budget of over £1 billion of capital spend, so the Member and the House will appreciate that the amount of money that we can carry forward is very small. That does not permit us to give any one Department or business area total flexibility in what it can carry forward.

I accept that in many circumstances — I have spoken to some colleagues about this — there are business areas where not having the ability to carry forward money into another year does not allow them to plan capital expenditure with the degree of certainty and strategic nature that they would want.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what measures his Department is taking to ensure prompt payments to subcontractors. (AQO 5544/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

For all government contracts, CPD guidance includes a number of measures aimed at ensuring prompt payment to subcontractors. They include payments by main contractors being made within 30 days; monthly reporting by main contractors on payments to subcontractors where the subcontract value exceeds 1% of the total contract or £10,000; payment issues being a standing agenda item for project meetings; random checking by project managers to ensure that subcontractors have received payments due; and the exclusion of contractors from tender opportunities for a year if they do not comply with contract conditions relating to prompt payment. In addition, my Department has introduced project bank accounts in appropriate construction work contracts, which help to accelerate payment to subcontractors and protect payments in the event of the main contractor’s insolvency. Payment is made simultaneously to the main contractor and its subcontractors, usually within five days of funds being deposited in the project bank account.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Will the Minister comment on the fact that many in the construction industry say that some of the difficulties that they find lie more in the period between the submission of invoices and the actual payment? Will the Minister give me some insight into how that element of the process can be expedited to make sure that the targets are not flawed and are met?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I accept that, even though we have put in a significant raft of measures to respond in the way that we want to from a public policy perspective, as responsible contractors or responsible buyers, we want to make sure that they abide by the sort of standards that we put upon ourselves. The Member will be familiar with the fact that we aim, as a Government, to pay all our invoices within 10 working days, not the 30 days that we have put on contractors, and obviously there needs to be a bit more time there because of the nature of the work.

I appreciate that sometimes there is a lapse between invoicing and payment. However, we have issued guidance to Departments, including my own, that, where we are developing contracts, particularly those with a significant volume of subcontracting, a condition must be that it is paid within 30 days.

Occasionally, there will be circumstances where the invoice submitted is not accurate. The main contractor might want to test that and make sure that everything that is being asked for is included and that our work has been done. However, by and large, everything should be easily paid within 30 days. As a Government, we endeavour to pay everything, and the project bank accounts will certainly help to ease out some of the problems, particularly with large construction projects.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

The Minister will be aware that the Health Minister raised the need for a project bank account to be included for the building of the training college at Desertcreat. Will he outline how important he thinks project bank accounts are to ensuring the quick payment of moneys to subcontractors?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

They are an incredibly valuable innovation. We are the first part of the United Kingdom to introduce project bank accounts, and I would not be surprised if other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom followed suit very quickly.

The Health Minister was right — I paid tribute to him at the time and would do so again — to ensure that a project bank account was included for the work at Desertcreat, which is in the Member's constituency, because of legitimate concerns that he had on the basis of previous experience in his sector about payment trickling down to subcontractors.

From January of last year, project bank accounts have been introduced into the contract conditions for government construction contracts let by my Department, where such contracts have an estimated value of £1 million and contain a significant subcontracting element. CPD has now let two construction works contracts that include the use of a PBA: the new regional office for the Rivers Agency in Omagh, at a cost of £1·13 million, and the refurbishment of the jobs and benefits office in Foyle at a cost of £1·04 million. We have also prepared guidance for the application of project bank accounts in all construction contracts. Its adoption as Northern Ireland public procurement policy will be considered by the procurement board to ensure that it is applied by all Departments in future.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra.

What monitoring process does the Minister have in place to ensure the effectiveness of the measures that he outlined earlier? Are any statistics available?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I have no current figures, but I will attempt to furnish the Member with some data as quickly as possible. In fact, I would be interested in seeing it myself. As he will know, regular project meetings go on, particularly about big construction contracts, to measure and keep an awareness of various aspects of a contract. We have now issued guidance intended for all Departments to ensure that, as well as talking about whether the contract is on course to be finished on time and any issues that have arisen over the course of a project, payment issues are included as a standard item on the agenda of project meetings. That allows officials, whether from my Department, other Departments or arm's-length bodies, to bear down on contractors and ensure that they adhere to the very strict and firm conditions that we are setting for prompt payment.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel for his assessment of the outlook for the local construction sector. (AQO 5545/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

We are continuing a theme, I suppose.

There is no doubt that our economy is beginning to show signs of recovery. We have had some encouraging indications that we are beginning to emerge from what has been the deepest and most protracted recession in living memory. The latest 'Northern Ireland Construction Bulletin' shows that the total volume of construction output here increased by some 2·4% in quarter 3 of 2013-14 compared with quarter 2. The Northern Ireland construction industry has demonstrated great versatility and resilience, with many firms winning major projects in Great Britain and beyond. A number of larger local construction firms have indicated that over 50% of their turnover comes from projects located outside Northern Ireland. The ability of local firms to compete and win work outside Northern Ireland is evidence of the quality of the construction industry here, and that gives me confidence in the future outlook for the industry.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Can the Minister outline what government has done not only to stabilise but to assist the recovery of the construction sector?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

What we have done most and perhaps best is continue to invest in infrastructure across Northern Ireland. We have assisted the construction industry by at least attempting to simplify and streamline the procurement process, as I outlined in response to other questions, and that has helped to reduce costs to the industry and, most importantly, public bodies. That has maximised the funding available for construction works and minimised delays in having schemes brought forward.

There is still considerable work to be done on speeding up our procurement process for major capital projects, and that is why I have asked the procurement board to carry out a targeted piece of work in that regard. However, in the biggest areas in which we are spending money on construction works, adjusted for inflation, we are now spending at the same level as we were prior to the 2007 credit crunch and downturn. Proportionately, public sector investment in construction, which, prior to 2007, was just below 40% of total investment, is now at 54% of total spend, which is testimony to the continued investment that we as a Government are putting in. However, it also shows the extent of the collapse in spending by the private sector. It is more of a private sector problem. I assure Members that all available capital moneys are being spent and that any surplus funding is being diverted into much-needed schemes through the monitoring round process.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Minister's figure of 54% of spending in the construction sector indicates how important public sector expenditure is. That brings me on to the ISNI portal, which is used to highlight what projects there are for contractors. Some contractors have indicated that the portal is not as good as it could be. They accept that it is a good principle, but, for example, some projects are not on it yet.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to come to his question.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Can the Minister ensure that his Department and others use the portal effectively to benefit local construction companies?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Member makes a good point about the portal, which is a delivery tracking system that the Strategic Investment Board (SIB) runs on behalf of the Executive. Obviously, SIB's work is a ministerial responsibility for the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, but it has the potential to be the answer to the problem that the Member identifies, which is a lack of clarity about the pipeline of capital investment moving forward. I have listened to people in the construction industry who, although they are taking up opportunities for work outside Northern Ireland, say that they are starting to see some pick-up in work here in Northern Ireland, especially in the private sector. They still want to do public sector work, and we want them to do public sector work in Northern Ireland. However, as they are meeting other pressures and have to skill up and tool up for projects well in advance, they need good information and a delivery tracking system could and should be able to do that.

The problem, as the Member identified, is that not all Departments have availed themselves of the data tracking system. There are some Departments whose work is not on the delivery tracking system at all, and there are other Departments who put the information on it sporadically. So, you are very much getting an incomplete picture for people in the construction industry. I think that, if we, as an Executive, are serious about giving good and timely information to people in the construction sector, this is a device that we can use. If we wanted to, we could all do it within a week. There is no reason why Departments should not be looking at it. As I mentioned in response to the previous question, I have asked the procurement board to look at this issue and related issues as part of its review of the procurement of major capital projects in Northern Ireland.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

Minister, there are still significant delays in many government capital projects hitting the ground. What can be done to improve the situation that we find ourselves in?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Of course, one of the biggest capital projects not to proceed over the past couple of years is the A5 road project. The Minister for Regional Development, Danny Kennedy, was responsible for that project and fell foul of the courts in the process leading towards it materialising on the ground. There are lessons for all of us to learn from that. One of the lessons that, I hope, we learn and something that, I hope, the subgroup of the procurement board will look at closely is how we create a pipeline of work so that, in a situation such as that with the A5, where a significant amount of money could not proceed — roughly £100 million last year and £115 million this year could not be spent on that project — a sufficient volume of projects have advanced to a stage at which they can avail themselves of that funding if and when it materialises.

Obviously, we hope that the sort of situation that arose with the A5 does not happen again and that all major capital projects that we want to deliver are delivered. However, as we know, whether through planning or falling foul of the courts, as Minister Kennedy did with the A5, that is not always the case. There need to be other opportunities to soak up that money. If we do not have an opportunity to soak up that money, the funding will be lost to Northern Ireland, and our people will lose out as a result.

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

5. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel for an update on the equal pay issue for retired civil servants. (AQO 5546/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for her question. I am very happy to say that, with my approval, officials from my Department are in the process of negotiating with NIPSA the settlement terms and processes for payment of former staff represented by the trade union who lodged writs in court following a change last year to the legal position on the time frame within which former staff can lodge equal pay claims. Affected former staff represented by NIPSA will be contacted soon. Once those processes have been agreed and payments for that group of staff are under way, officials will contact other former staff who could bring a claim and seek to settle with them in the same way.

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

I am delighted to ask a supplementary question on that good news; I was not expecting it. Could the Minister advise the House of the time frame and of how many staff this affects?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

It is a very rare piece of good news around this place, but I am happy to bring it nonetheless. About 1,200 staff will be affected. Obviously, we are very keen to progress this as quickly as possible. As I said, we have already started discussing this with union officials to try to get it transacted as quickly as possible. However, as the Member will appreciate, given the volume of staff and the amount of money that will be paid out to affected individuals — around £2 million — it will take some time to process not just the terms of the outstanding pay but the ramifications for pensions.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

If finance were made available to settle the equal pay issue, will the estates of staff who have died also receive the payment?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question on an important issue. Again, the answer is good news. Yes, officials will contact the estates of staff who have died and make a payment to the estate of the deceased member of staff.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. That concludes questions for oral answer to the Minister of Finance. We will now move to topical questions.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

1. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to confirm that DSD has estimated that £450 million will come out of the local economy if welfare reform is implemented. (AQT 721/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I am not particularly versed in DSD's precise estimate of what will come out of the economy as a result of welfare reform. Many people in Northern Ireland will benefit from welfare reform as a result of the move to universal credit, and a significant number will be better off. As happens with any changes or reforms, there are always winners and losers. However, the Member will know that, as I made perfectly clear not just in responses to earlier questions but very publicly in the media and in the House last week, we have to balance the impact of the money that is lost as a result of welfare reform with the significant amount that will be lost to the Northern Ireland economy and to our ability as an Assembly to spend money on public services that are needed by our citizens.

The Member and I go back a long time in looking at welfare reform, and he will remember the previous set of reforms, which were a bit of a teddy bears' picnic compared to the current ones. He will have to appreciate, as I am sure will others, that the impact of taking £1 billion out of our Budget over the next five years will affect some seriously vulnerable people in Northern Ireland society.

That does not take into account the impact of the cost of a replacement IT system. If we step away from parity with the rest of the United Kingdom, we will have to replace that system, the cost of which is estimated at £1·6 billion over the next 10 years. Then, there is the very real concern that, even in procuring a very expensive IT system of our own, it will take until beyond 2016 to put it in place. The ramifications of that are that many people, including 200,000 working families in Northern Ireland, will not receive the benefits to which they are entitled post-2016.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. I do not recognise the figures he mentioned; they have materialised only in the past few weeks. Rather than being a reform agenda, this is a cuts agenda. The British Government have already said that they want a 20% reduction in the benefit bill.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to finish.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

It is more likely to hit those who are most marginalised in society, such as low earners. Would it not be better if we stood together, as a House, and went to the British Government to say enough is enough?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I must insist that the Member now brings his remarks to a close.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Let us get a system that benefits —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Minister —

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

— the people rather than having cuts.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I think that there was maybe a question in there somewhere; there was a why or a where or something.

I remind the Member that, whatever the estimates — he mentioned £450 million, and I have seen a figure of £750 million being put forward by others — that is not money that is being taken out of the economy. It is the amount less that we will have to spend on welfare in Northern Ireland. The overall global picture of welfare spending in Northern Ireland will continue to increase post-welfare reform. If we take the Member's figure, it is £450 million less than we might have expected as opposed to a net loss of £450 million.

Thinking back to figures that I saw 12 to 18 months ago, social security expenditure in Northern Ireland was anticipated to rise towards the end of the decade by roughly 20% as a result of the reductions that will come through from welfare reform; that will be roughly 17%. However, whether it is 20% or 17%, there will still be a net increase in welfare expenditure in Northern Ireland. There will not be a reduction.

As I said, in a situation where it might not be nice to see that amount of money not going into the Northern Ireland economy, we will sure as hell feel the impact of £1 billion being taken out of our ability to spend over the next five years. The Member said that he does not recognise the figures that I have put out, but he will start to recognise them when we see cuts to every single Department — every single Department. I will have no option but to bring forward a paper to Executive colleagues outlining how I think we should best reduce our expenditure across all Departments by £105 million next year. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I will really not look forward in a few years' time to taking over £300 million out of expenditure by Departments here in Northern Ireland. The impact of that will hit the very vulnerable people whom, I believe, the Member is trying to protect. Those same vulnerable people will be affected exceptionally negatively by cuts in housing, health, education and other sectors.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

2. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel when the agrifood loan scheme should reopen for applications, given its significance to our local industry and his revelation that it should reopen early in the financial year. (AQT 722/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Work is ongoing. I would not necessarily describe what I said as a revelation. It was pretty clearly outlined to Executive colleagues in the January monitoring paper and was not hidden away anywhere. I raised it specifically in the House when I brought forward the January monitoring paper.

I remain absolutely and totally committed to the scheme. It is a good scheme that allows us to avail ourselves of opportunities in UK supermarkets, which are increasingly sourcing food products, particularly meat products, from UK farms and producers. There are huge opportunities for the local sector to expand. I am sure that the Member will appreciate that bringing together government, banks, producers and processors was complicated from the outset. We anticipated that, even if applications were made in this financial year, the bulk of the spending would take place in the next financial year. That is why we have an existing commitment from January to an additional £10 million of expenditure in the agrifood loan scheme. Work continues on that, and I hope that it will be in place in the next number of weeks, ready for the next financial year and for people to avail themselves of an excellent opportunity to expand their businesses.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. It may not have been a revelation for the Minister, but it certainly was for a large number of people in the industry. Will the Minister confirm whether the £10 million is still in place for the scheme?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I am sure that many in the farming industry do not listen to January monitoring statements, and certainly a lot of Members of the House do not listen to those statements, even though they are incredibly important. There is £10 million committed to next year, and we will judge the success of the scheme on how it impacts on the poultry sector. If it is as successful as I think that it will be, we will look at additional expenditure in future years. There is money through financial transactions capital that is unallocated for future years and could be given to the poultry sector. We are also exploring opportunities in the pig meat sector, and we have not drawn a line just under those two sectors. We will look at other opportunities in other sectors of our booming agrifood industry.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what discussions he has had with NAMA in the past week, given the importance of its portfolio to the local economy and markets. (AQT 723/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I have not had any discussions this week with NAMA. I am sure that the Member will refer to reports in the media, although I will try, as best as I can, not to pre-empt his supplementary question. I have had no conversations with NAMA this week, although I intend to have a conversation early next week.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. It is important to appreciate the commercial sensitivities on this issue. Will the Minister reassure us that the Executive and the Dublin Government are making it quite clear that there is a need for responsible management of the NAMA portfolio to avoid any adverse effect on the local economy?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Member, and most Members, will have seen news reports towards the tail-end of last week on speculation about a potential buyer for the Northern Ireland portfolio. As I understand it, it is not only for assets in Northern Ireland but for assets that are owned by Northern Ireland people. Those assets will predominantly be in Northern Ireland, but they could also be in Great Britain, the Republic or elsewhere. It has the potential to be very good for Northern Ireland as we get towards the business end of what NAMA has to do. NAMA has taken a responsible approach over the past number of years, but it is getting to the stage in its process at which it will have to start to realise some benefit and money from the assets that it holds in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. I am sure that the investor, who has been mooted in the press as having the backing of a $2 trillion fund, will take a longer-term view of NAMA's assets in Northern Ireland. It has the potential to be very good in unlocking the huge potential in many of the assets that are locked up in NAMA.

However, it would be utterly inappropriate for me to discuss the merits or otherwise of particular bids with NAMA. We have an interest in what happens to those assets. From the outset, at the institution of NAMA, we encouraged it not to go down the route of a fire sale, and, to be fair, it has not. It has acted incredibly responsibly, and, in some respects, has been very good for the property market in Northern Ireland by carefully letting some assets out in the construction sector, in housing and in commercial properties. When I next speak to NAMA, I will continue to impress upon it that whatever happens with the portfolio, whether it remains in NAMA's hands or goes to somebody else, it must ensure that the assets are handled with great sensitivity and that the property market in Northern Ireland, which is showing good signs and improving gradually, is not wounded or damaged in any way by a sale to somebody who wants to earn a fast buck.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel for his estimate of the savings that his Department will require in the principal civil service pension scheme in 2014. (AQT 724/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I do not want to guess so I will furnish the Member with the precise figures in correspondence, if he is content with that.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you. I expect a similar answer to my supplementary. What changes are likely to be applied to employee contributions to deliver the planned savings?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

As a result of the reforms that recently passed through the House but have not yet received Royal Assent, we will take whatever steps are necessary, as will all Ministers who are responsible for one of the five principal schemes covered by the Bill, to realise the savings that the Executive collectively have to make. There is a range of ways in which that can be done, and increased contributions are already hitting members of staff, but I would rather come back to the Member with more precise details than say something foolish and wrong in the House.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

5. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel for an update on the £3·2 million in dormant accounts of faith-based organisations. (AQT 725/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Member will be aware that the issue has been around for some time, and some cynics might say that it, in itself, has become dormant over the past number of years. We have been attempting to develop the most appropriate scheme to utilise the money in dormant accounts, which, as I understand it, has increased significantly. As more money passed the threshold — in a bank account showing no transactions for 15 years — it has come into the overall dormant account pool.

I agree with my predecessor's decision to move away from a grant-based programme to one that provides loans to people in various sectors who work with children and young people and others who are in need. I have regular meetings with officials on the detail of taking that forward, and I hope soon to be in a position to have a finalised scheme that can start to hit the ground running in the not-too-distant future and do some very good work right across Northern Ireland.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he foresee who will administer the loans?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

That will be an issue in how we design any scheme. Who will do that is up for discussion. My personal favourite approach is that, instead of government administering it and having to create a bureaucracy of our own, we look to the market to people who are operating in Northern Ireland. I do not wish to name any particular organisations, but several that operate in Northern Ireland offer loans to people in the social enterprise sector. It is important that we piggyback on their experience and knowledge of the sector so that we can get all the money and, indeed, probably more into very needy projects across Northern Ireland.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

6. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what discussions he had with the Health Minister about the pressures in the health service, particularly the accident and emergency crisis, given that, in the recent in-year monitoring process, although the Health Minister bid for some £43 million for inescapable pressures, some £30 million was allocated. (AQT 726/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I have regular discussions with the Health Minister and Executive colleagues, not least when I put forward my January monitoring paper and the Executive gave £30 million to my colleague the Health Minister to relieve pressures that his Department was under. I am not satisfied that just £30 million was needed; I think that the pressures probably deserved more. However, given the situation that we found ourselves in and that we were trying to balance competing pressures that the Executive face, I do not recall the Minister for Regional Development, for example, putting his hand up and offering the Minister of Health any additional funding. We have to balance a whole range of pressures. I am glad that we were able to give the Minister of Health £30 million to spend on relieving pressures right across the health service, as we did in previous monitoring rounds. I will continue to support the Health Minister when he comes forward with bids to meet the inescapable pressures that he faces as a result of years of mismanagement in the health service that he, of course, inherited just two years ago.

Michael Copeland (UUP, Belfast East)

1. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to outline the success of Invest NI initiatives in promoting and creating jobs for people who are long-term unemployed. (AQO 5556/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

My Department and Invest Northern Ireland have a key role to play in addressing unemployment by ensuring that we deliver on our Programme for Government commitment to promote 25,000 new jobs. A significant element of Invest NI’s job promotion activity is directed at helping to rebuild the local economy in the wake of the economic downturn. In doing so, the jobs fund has offered an important source of employment creation, particularly in providing opportunities for those who would be considered as long-term unemployed.

Since its launch in 2011, the jobs fund has created over 4,300 new jobs. Some 300 of those jobs have been created for younger people not in education, employment or training who have received support to start up their own business. A further 650 residents of neighbourhood renewal areas have also received support to set up their own business, and 160 jobs have been created in social enterprises across Northern Ireland.

Michael Copeland (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for her answer. However, recent labour figures show that over-45s in Northern Ireland are more likely to be economically inactive than their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom. What specific steps does she have in mind to address that trend?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It has long been recognised that we in Northern Ireland have an issue about those who are economically inactive. It is one of the reasons why the Minister for Employment and Learning and I are engaged in a consultation on that very issue. In that consultation, we will, of course, engage with stakeholders, but we hope that people will take the opportunity to look at the consultation, because it gives the chance for people to come forward with innovative, new ideas for pilot projects. I know that some Members are engaged in looking at what that could mean for their own particular area, and I encourage him to do likewise.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

Will the Minister inform the House what impact the jobs fund has had in my East Belfast constituency?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The jobs fund has been a tremendous success. Of course, it was one of the actions that we took to try to deal with the downturn that came upon us. In East Belfast, it has promoted a total of 1,259 jobs. I think that is a tremendous impact for the constituency. That includes 30 jobs fund business investment projects at various stages of development, which should lead to the creation of 1,179 new jobs as well. Of course, that includes a very large project known as Stream, which had 993 jobs. We should note that the jobs fund is also having an impact on neighbourhood renewal areas and on those not in education, employment or training. It is not just creating new jobs but is helping people in those disadvantaged areas.

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

Clearly, there is a need for a specific approach to the long-term unemployed. The Minister has put a lot of emphasis on the jobs fund. Will she estimate how many of the jobs that have been created have in fact gone to long-term unemployed people?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I do not have those statistics, because it is not a measure that we have. I know that the House would like me to have statistics broken down into many different categories, but I do not have that particular category. I think the jobs fund is my strongest tool to help in particular areas, but it should be seen alongside everything else that has been happening, including the work that goes on in Stephen Farry's Department, the Department for Employment and Learning, particularly through his employer subsidy, which is the Steps to Work strand. That subsidy provides an incentive to employers to recruit unemployed or economically inactive clients whom they would not otherwise look to. That is part of the suite: we have to look across government as to how we can help people who are struggling with unemployment, particularly those who have been struggling for a long time. The economically inactive strategy, which is, as I said, out for consultation, provides the opportunity to do something innovative in that area. We look forward to the consultation responses, which should be with us over the next month.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Earlier, the Minister mentioned discussions with the Minister for Employment and Learning. Is she concerned about the large number of people who are getting ring binders full of certificates but are no nearer to getting a job because they lack the skills demanded by industry?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am not here to answer questions on behalf of the Employment and Learning Minister; he is well capable of doing that for himself. However, one area where I am involved with him in relation to what the Member calls "ring binders full of certificates" is the Software Testers Academy. I know that those people get real and meaningful jobs. That is why the academy was set up: to deal with the deficit of skills for the IT industry. A targeted approach is certainly needed. There is no point in giving young people skills if there are no jobs at the end of that skills development. Certainly, that is where my focus has been. I think it is where the focus of the Employment and Learning Minister has been as well. That is why he is putting a lot of emphasis at the moment on apprenticeships. I encourage him in that; I think that that is the way we should be moving forward.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

2. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for her assessment of the impact of the heavy goods vehicle road user levy on cross-border trade, particularly that of small and medium-sized enterprises. (AQO 5557/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

In 2013, I met the Freight Transport Association about those very issues. The UK Government estimate that nine out of 10 UK-registered HGV operators should experience no overall change due to reductions in vehicle excise duty. The Republic of Ireland remains our second largest market for sales, after Great Britain, and it is a particularly important market for SMEs. I am aware that rising transport costs are a concern for many local firms. I have, therefore, tasked my Department and the Northern Ireland Centre for Economic Policy with conducting research on the cost of doing business. That research will examine a range of cost areas, including transport costs, and seek to benchmark costs for Northern Ireland firms against the Republic of Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her answer. Does she agree that, given the impact such a levy would have on cross-border economic development, it is of a cross-cutting nature? Therefore, will she encourage the Environment Minister to bring a paper to the Executive on the matter?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It is not a matter for the Environment Minister; it is a matter for Westminster. They have decided that they are going ahead with the levy. In some ways, I understand why they have decided to do that. Many of our road hauliers have to pay tolls and charges when they travel across Europe. Even when they travel in the Republic of Ireland, they are subject to road charges and tolls. Therefore, it was felt that we needed to give a level playing field to our hauliers. The Freight Transport Association actually welcomes the road user levy. There were concerns about the Irish Government, in discussion with the UK Government, exempting the levy for the whole of the Northern Ireland road network, but that has not been the case. The Westminster Department considers Northern Ireland part of the scheme as well.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her answers, and I welcome her back from her business trip to Singapore. I am sure that we will hear some good news later on.

Does the Minister believe that it is right for the Republic of Ireland to push for Northern Ireland roads to be exempt from the levy while Northern Ireland hauliers are paying toll charges when using roads in the Republic of Ireland?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As I said, it is a Westminster matter. It has been decided to exempt seven kilometres of road in Northern Ireland that goes in and out along the border so that there are no enforcement difficulties.

That is in and around the A37 and A3, which, as I said, weave in and out of the Republic of Ireland. It would be unfair for our hauliers to have to pay the tolls that they have to pay. I know that the cost of doing business across Europe has risen. I am waiting for that report from the Northern Ireland Centre for Economic Policy. I look forward to the evidence base that it will bring me. It is unfair that they should be expected to pay tolls when people who come from the rest of Europe, including the Republic of Ireland, do not pay a charge in Northern Ireland. It is the right compromise. I hope that we will continue to keep an eye on that to make sure that our hauliers are not disadvantaged.

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

I have listened very carefully to the Minister. I am sure that she will agree with me that what we and hauliers want more than anything is a unified and coordinated approach to this. She will be aware that the Minister for Transport, Leo Varadkar, is meeting his counterparts in the UK at the end of February. What is she doing to ensure that we do not end up with a situation where there is ping-pong between North and South and that, in fact, there is a coordinated and unified approach to a very serious problem?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Perhaps that is more a matter for the Minister for Regional Development, who shadows Leo Varadkar on this issue in the North/South Ministerial Council. I will certainly pass on the Member's comments on the matter. As I understand it, the whole issue of being able to enforce related to that stretch of road that goes in and out of the Republic of Ireland. That is why they have determined that it is exempt from the regulations and that it is only in the rest of Northern Ireland that they will be applicable. The Department for Transport has taken the view that exclusion of those particular roads will not affect the overall cohesiveness of the scheme in Northern Ireland. I very much hope that that is the case. I hear what the Member is saying, but he should reflect on the fact that the Freight Transport Association welcomes the scheme in Northern Ireland. It made that point to me back in March of last year.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

With regard to the pressures that are being placed on hauliers, is the Minister aware of the difficulties that are being created for Northern Ireland hauliers by excessive delay in the Southern authorities' refunding of VAT that they are entitled to on fuel purchases? Is there anything that she can do to try to expedite those matters?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am aware of that issue because it has been raised with me at a constituency level as opposed to a ministerial level. However, again, it is probably more an issue for the Department for Regional Development. I am, of course, content to pass on the Member's concerns to the Minister so that he can raise it with the appropriate authorities in the Republic.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

3. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for her assessment of the levels of transparency in home-heating oil prices. (AQO 5558/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The price of heating oil is largely determined by international markets. Daily movements in the commodity price for kerosene are fully transparent. The Consumer Council produces a range of current and archived retail oil prices across Northern Ireland on its oil watch web page. Additionally, the Northern Ireland Oil Federation, in partnership with the Consumer Council, launched a customer charter that provides service and price guarantees to consumers confirming the price of oil in advance of delivery.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for her answer. As she may be aware, my colleagues in the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment raised those concerns in December. Can she indicate what response she has had from the Oil Federation in that regard? Go raibh maith agat.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am not entirely sure what concerns have been raised. Certainly, I have not received any issues to take forward. The reality is that the price is transparent. We have looked at that in the past. Indeed, the Office of Fair Trading looked at the issue in 2011. All that we can do is continue to look at the price of oil and work with the Consumer Council, which, as I have indicated, keeps a very close eye on the issue. Indeed, I welcome the fact that it is now working more proactively and positively with the oil industry here in Northern Ireland.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

Can the Minister comment further on the need for regulation of the home heating oil market?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As I indicated, the 2011 Office of Fair Trading study considered the Northern Ireland oil distribution sector to be transparent and, more importantly, competitive on price, with cheaper retail prices than Great Britain and, indeed, the Republic of Ireland. That point is sometimes missed when the story comes to the fore.

It remains very unclear whether regulation would achieve significant benefit. However, I know this much: it would place a large regulatory burden and cost on what is assessed as being a competitive oil supply and distribution sector. Let us not forget that the cost will be passed on to the consumer. Therefore, regulation is not a cost-free option. It brings costs, and those costs have to be passed on to the consumer. We should remember that when we talk about regulation.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagraí go dtí seo. Will the Minister advise the House how often she meets, or her departmental officials meet, the likes of oil retailers to discuss prices and the impact of those prices on the economy, fuel poverty and related consumer matters?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As the Member is only too well aware, the issue of fuel poverty is taken forward by my colleague the Minister for Social Development, and I am sure that he keeps in contact with the retailers. Steps have been taken to help those in fuel poverty. I particularly commend the efforts in and around bulk buying. I am aware of very many excellent examples of credit unions, local councils and communities working together in oil-buying schemes or oil stamp-saving schemes to ease the burden of purchasing oil. We know that the cost of energy, regardless of whether it is oil, gas or electricity, is a burden on those in fuel poverty. Therefore, I welcome the fact that such schemes are in place to help individuals.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

4. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for an update on the measures being undertaken to improve broadband coverage in rural areas. (AQO 5559/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

In recent years, my Department has invested significantly to facilitate the extension of broadband networks, making use of numerous technologies including fixed-line, radio and satellite. On 7 February 2014, I announced further investment of some £23·5 million from government and BT to improve broadband choice and speed to over 45,000 premises across Northern Ireland. That work is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2015. I will continue to work to extend broadband services, where it is feasible and cost-effective to do so.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for her reply. What criteria will BT use to determine where investment, if any, is placed?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We are working again with BT, which has proven itself to be a good partner in the past. The improvements that will take place are based on engineering criteria and what represents the best value for money. Of course, most of the money is public money, so we will want to make sure that our intervention represents good value for money.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagraí. That is welcome news. When does the Minister foresee the money first being rolled out? Will she give an assurance that she will look at and address the fact that there are those who will not able to use line-based technology? However, this is a good-news story.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his acknowledgement that it is a good-news story. I know that we have been waiting on investment for some time now. Indeed, he is one of the Members who keeps asking me when it will be available. We are pleased that the tender has now been agreed with BT. It will look at the many postcodes that have been submitted to the Department to see what engineering solutions are available in those areas and whether they represent good value for money.

We are looking forward to the roll-out of the mobile infrastructure project for mobile phones. You might ask why I am mentioning that in the context of broadband, but the reason is that we know that many people use their mobile devices to access broadband. We are looking at the issue in the round and trying to make sure that people who cannot access fixed-line broadband can do so through another technology.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Will the Minister outline how much of the £230 million from the UK Government her Department will receive and where it will be spent?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The £23·5 million that we are rolling out in Northern Ireland is a mixture of money from my Department, the European Union, the Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS), BT and DARD. So, there are five parts to the scheme. I think that we received in the region of £6 million, although I stand to be corrected on that. I am going from memory, Mr McCallister, so forgive me if that figure is wrong. However, I think that it is £6 million from DCMS for this particular pot of money. We will receive more money for the mobile infrastructure project, as I indicated. However, for this particular scheme, I think that it is £6 million.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

5. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment what steps her Department has taken towards rebalancing the economy. (AQO 5560/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Actions that are set out in the Northern Ireland economic strategy seek to rebalance the local economy by stimulating higher rates of innovation, increasing skills levels and encouraging export growth. Considerable progress has been made across all Departments in implementing those actions. My Department has promoted 19,329 jobs and secured investment of £1·04 billion in the Northern Ireland economy. In addition, Invest NI has supported investment of £238 million by businesses in R&D since April 2011. We have also taken action that is aimed at rebuilding the local labour market by continuing to offer support for businesses through a range of measures, including the jobs fund and the growth loan fund. We are continuing to advance the case for the devolution of corporation tax, which has the potential to help to rebalance and rebuild the Northern Ireland economy faster than would otherwise be possible.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for her response thus far. How many services that the Civil Service formerly delivered are now delivered by the private sector, and how many jobs have been relocated from the public to the private sector as a result?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I do not have those figures in front of me today, but I am happy to make contact with the Department of Finance and Personnel to try to assess them.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the Minister give us an update on the measures that are outlined in the Northern Ireland economic pact and on how progress is going there?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As the Member knows, in June 2013 just before the G8, the economic pact was a document that was set about from Westminster and ourselves. Obviously, corporation tax is a very important part of that, and we await the Scottish referendum being dealt with before we have a particular answer on that issue. However, that does not mean that we have not progressed in other areas. We have agreed to pilot an enterprise zone that will build on Coleraine's role as a digital hub, which I am sure that the Member is delighted about. My colleague the Finance Minister sent details of the possible proposals to Her Majesty's Treasury on 6 December as a basis for discussion, and we are awaiting feedback on that issue.

Where access to finance is concerned, we have, of course, met as a joint ministerial task force to examine whether tailored support is required for our banks and how support for Northern Ireland businesses can be maximised to improve access to finance. We are meeting again in joint ministerial task force remit on 26 March. We have also set up the access to finance implementation panel, which has commenced its meetings with the four local banks. I am very pleased with the calibre of people whom we were able to attract to that panel. The business regulation review has been launched. The expert advisory panel, which includes Lord Curry, who is the Chair of the Westminster Better Regulation Executive, has also started its piece of work. So, the projects are progressing, and we will keep in touch with our colleagues in Westminster to continue to pursue corporation tax.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her answers. Does she accept that the term "rebalancing the economy" must include addressing the historical neglect west of the Bann, and will she explain how her Department strives to rectify that situation?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Obviously, we are dealing with that issue, in particular the way in which west of the Bann had to deal with IRA violence in the past and the fact that a lot of infrastructure was damaged in that way. I am delighted that the licence competition for gas to the west has been announced. We look forward to natural gas being available to citizens and businesses in the west of the Province for the first time. That will have a big impact in the west of the Province, particularly for businesses that have had to endure not having the choice of energy provision. I very much welcome that they will now have the choice of natural gas and I look forward to that being rolled out in the west of the Province.

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

Minister, you will be aware of the important role that small businesses play in the Northern Ireland economy. I will speak to you later about this, but will you visit part of my constituency and speak to local businesses about some of the difficulties they face in matching education to the skills that their industry needs? In particular, Minister, how often do you and Minister Farry have that analysis?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

And, indeed, the Minister of Education as well. At the next meeting of the Executive subgroup on the economy, we intend to discuss that very issue, around careers advice and making sure that it fits in with the economy of today and tomorrow. As I indicated to Mr McCrea, there is little point in having a surfeit of skills that do not match the workforce that we need. We very much need to join up the Departments of Education, Employment and Learning and Enterprise, Trade and Investment in relation to careers and skills advice. I am more than happy to have a conversation with the Member around that issue.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

6. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment what assessment her Department has made on the impact of wind energy on energy prices. (AQO 5561/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Wind generation rarely sets the price of wholesale electricity, although it does influence prices on a continuing basis. At peak demand times, wind can often offset more expensive peaking plant. Also, if there is a lot of wind on the system, remaining demand will be met by conventional generators, with the more efficient and cheaper being dispatched first.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her answer. It has come to the attention of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee that when wind energy can meet demand, generation costs are significantly reduced. Does the Minister agree that to bring down price, we need to increase our investment in wind energy and reduce our over-reliance on expensive fossil fuels such as gas?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As I have always said to the Member: it is not just about wind energy; it is about renewable energy from all the different types of technologies. At present, we are probably over-reliant on wind as a source of renewable energy. I hope that other sources will emerge in the future, whether it is tidal or marine, and we look forward to that coming on to the grid as well as wind. I am carrying out a cost-benefit analysis. I think that the time is right to do that in relation to the energy market. We are about halfway in the strategic energy framework, therefore it is right to review the cost of energy as whole, and we will be doing that. In fact, I have appointed consultants to do that, and that report will be with me by the end of the year. We will then have that look at the strategic energy framework.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The UK government indicated that between 2004 and 2012, the increase in electricity bills has gone up from 2% to 8% as a result of renewable energy. Today, industry in Northern Ireland says that we are one of the least competitive places for energy in the whole of Europe. Does the Minister agree that, if we followed the policies of the Green Party, we would be back to the dark ages of blackouts, no competitive industry and increased fuel poverty, and that really we ought to be going for greater electricity —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to come to his question.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

— from fossil fuels, which are much less expensive?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I agree with the Member that we need to be aware of our security of supply, and, as Members will know, in 2016, there will be only 200 megawatts above the balance. We should be concerned about that, and we will take action on the issue over the coming months because we cannot allow ourselves to get into a position where we are at risk of blackouts. That would be the worst-case scenario for citizens and particularly for industry and businesses. How could we possibly say to people that they should invest in Northern Ireland if we do not have a secure energy platform on which they could come forward? I hear what the Member is saying about energy costs. He will know that we are looking, with the Utility Regulator, into the whole issue. I will also say this: every day that we are without the North/South interconnector costs £7 million to consumers in Northern Ireland alone, and it costs a significant amount — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

— of money to Republic of Ireland consumers as well. So every day that we are without the North/South interconnector is a constraint on the energy of Northern Ireland.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

That concludes oral questions to the Minister. We now move to topical questions. Anna Lo is not in her place.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

2. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment whether she or her officials have had any discussions with the Ilex regeneration company in my constituency regarding the economic regeneration elements of the One Plan. (AQT 732/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

No, I have not had any discussions, but that does not mean that the Department has not had discussions. I am, of course, aware of the One Plan, and we very much support the overarching vision that the One Plan brings not only to the city but to the north-west. I will be happy to meet the Member to consider such a request.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for her response and for her cooperation in teasing the issue out. Is the Minister aware of the U4D launch last week? That campaign points out very clearly that the most important economic regeneration plan ever to come into the city would be the expansion of Magee. In its words, the development of Magee would lead to combating one of the highest levels of unemployment in the region.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am aware of the campaign and its very capable spokespersons, who very often remind the Executive about the issue. However, as the Member will no doubt be aware, that is not a matter for me but for the Minister for Employment and Learning, and I presume that he will have been listening last week to the case that was put forward.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

3. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for an update on her recent trip to Singapore with Ministers from Dublin and London. (AQT 733/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for that question because I have not been able to sandwich that response in anywhere else on today's agenda. The trade mission was the first of its type in so far as it was the first joint mission between the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and Invest Northern Ireland, Enterprise Ireland and UK Trade and Investment worked very well to put forward three Ministers to go to Singapore to talk about the aerospace sector. We have a very strong aerospace sector in Northern Ireland. We have, of course, the very big influence of Bombardier in east Belfast, but we also have about 50 companies involved in the aerospace supply chain. I was very pleased to be present at the Singapore Airshow. It is probably the third-most important global aerospace show, and it was important that we were there to put forward our case.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for her response. Will she indicate how Invest NI, when organising trade missions, works with local councils, such as my council in Strabane, to promote subregions as a possible destination for foreign investors?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

That issue has come up on many occasions, and I have always said to the councils involved that they need to bring forward their proposition to us so that we are aware of the offering in the council area. We have 26 councils at present, and that will soon be down to 11.

In particular, I ask the Member to look at our newly developed app for each of the council areas. Councils can put their individual strengths and skills advantages on the app so that it can be given to all potential investors. I know that she will join me in welcoming the recent announcement of jobs in O'Neills. Over 60 jobs were created with the help of the jobs fund in a very worthwhile and good investment for Strabane.

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

4. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, given that her Department has a proud record of relationships with the credit union movement, whether she shares my concern that, day and daily, we read about people being ripped off by loan sharks and online companies that charge outrageous rates of interest and whether she would consider re-engaging with the credit union movement to establish why, although millions of pounds are in savings, in the same townlands and parishes, these loan sharks are running riot through people’s pockets. (AQT 734/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am more than happy to say that I have always recognised the role that the credit union plays in Northern Ireland. I say "in Northern Ireland" because the mainland does not have the same presence of credit unions. As he says, credit unions are recognised and have a good reputation, and, therefore, people trust them and want to invest in them. I am happy to speak to the Member outside of the House about what he has in mind for their promotion. I certainly share his concerns about loan sharks and companies that, on the face of it, look very warm and cuddly, but, when you look a bit further, are not cuddly at all.

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

I thank the Minister for her answer, which, as I expected, is very positive, and I encourage her to continue in that vein. The Minister referred to "the mainland", but we will not fall out about that. Is she aware that, "on the mainland", the Government appointed field officers to go out into the highways and byways to educate people about the advantages of credit unions and encourage their use? Would she consider a scheme similar to that here?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thought that that was where the Member was going with this. The Member knows that Northern Ireland has a much more developed credit union system than the rest of the United Kingdom. That is why they have felt the need to appoint field officers and finance what is happening there. We do not see the need for that because we have at least two very strong federations. They make their voice heard, rightly so, and have done so throughout the whole credit union reform process, which, as the Member knows, is ongoing. Therefore, I do not think that there is a need for field officers as such, but I am happy to talk to him about other options that may fall somewhat short of that.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

5. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment why the £10 million agrifood loan scheme, which she announced with the Finance Minister, was handed back. (AQT 735/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It has not been handed back; it just could not be spent within that period because of legal issues that had to be sorted out between the banks, industry and government. This is the first time that we have tried anything like this, and, sometimes, when you try something for the first time, it takes a little while for the lawyers to get their head around it. I understand that the lawyers acting for the banks are now content and that the issue is now with the principal poultry supplier. Therefore, I am very hopeful that the matter will come to a head in the very near future.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Will she give me an update on the Going for Growth strategy? When does she expect it to be brought before the Executive for consideration?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As I am sure the Member is well aware, this is a joint paper between the Agriculture Minister and me, given which I was rather surprised to hear the Agriculture Minister's comments on it when I was out of the country last week. It is quite a comprehensive paper. It is now before the Executive, and I am certainly not "holding it up", which was, I think, the allegation made last week when I was not around to deal with the issue.

We very much hope that Executive colleagues will sign up to Going for Growth, but, of course, that is in the context of money being available to deal with it. As we know, we are going to lose millions of pounds if we do not get agreement on welfare reform. Therefore, it is very difficult to see where the money will come from. Indeed, I would welcome the Agriculture Minister's clarification on where the schemes are, what she is putting forward for them and some clarity on where the money is going to come from. We look forward to that clarification in the coming days.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Colum Eastwood is not in his place for question 6.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

7. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, without being too repetitive given Mr Dallat’s question, whether she will work closely with local credit unions to expand on the range of services that they are able to deliver, given the increasing number of bank closures in rural areas, including Dromore, Fintona and Beragh in my constituency. (AQT 737/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Part of the credit union reform is looking at the range of powers that credit unions will have. I hear what the Member said about bank closures. It is concerning for those of us who live rurally and have to deal with these issues. As well as that, we can access banking services through the Post Office. The Post Office is very keen that we do that. I have had some discussions with it about the fact that it can take deposits from most of the major banks and deal with other issues in that regard as well. We will look at credit unions, post offices and anything else that can help in the circumstances for rural dwellers.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Does the Minister have any thinking on the type of additional services that might be delivered through credit unions in the future? Does her Department have a regular liaison arrangement with credit union leaders to discuss issues of common concern?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Of course, it was not that long ago that we not only registered but regulated credit unions. We had a very close relationship with the credit unions. We no longer regulate the credit unions; as you will recall, that is now carried out by Westminster. We just register the credit unions, but we still have a very good working relationship because of the historical working relationship with the credit unions, including the Ulster federation and the Irish federation.

As for extra powers, I think that we looked at them being able to deal with some benefits that come forward from government. I am quite happy to clarify that to the Member in writing. There are certainly particular powers that we are looking at bringing to the credit unions.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

8. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment whether she still believes that the Programme for Government 40% target for renewable energy is realistic and achievable. (AQT 738/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I do. Last year, we hit, I think, 17% for renewable energies. The biggest challenge for us in renewable energy is the grid. We have had a stronger uptake in small renewable projects, which has put more of a strain on the grid than the larger renewable energy projects. We have a challenge with our grid. We are looking at that proactively at present. The regulator has allowed NIE to invest in the grid, although maybe not as much as NIE would have liked. We are also looking at some European funding, which would have to be match-funded by the industry here, to see whether that is available to us to help to strengthen the grid, particularly in the west of the Province.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Was the Minister surprised when the former Minister of the Environment and Finance Minister called the same target impossible and economically destructive?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

No, I was not surprised at all. [Laughter.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, Members. That concludes Question Time.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Mr Speaker, I very much apologise to you and the House for my absence today. I have been very busy today dealing with a number of issues. It just went out of my mind. I am very sorry.