Northern Ireland Assembly, 17 June 2014

386 contributions from 66 members. The official report.

Committee Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The first item of business today is the postponed vote on the Committee report on the complaints against Mr Gerry Kelly. [Interruption.] Order. The vote, of course, will be on a cross-community basis.

Question put.

The Assembly divided:

Ayes 56; Noes 37.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Question is negatived. [Interruption.] Order. Let us move on.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Lawbreakers.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Assembly Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Mrs Foster has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22 and will have up to three minutes to speak on the subject.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The petition is signed by those in the community in County Fermanagh who value and want to retain Collegiate Grammar School in Enniskillen. I welcome members of the Collegiate action group to the Gallery this morning, along with members of the board of governors, friends, supporters, staff and, indeed, some pupils.

The Western Education and Library Board recently published a development proposal, which would mean the closure of Collegiate Grammar and Portora Royal schools by September 2015. That, we are told, is to facilitate the creation of a single co-educational, non-denominational voluntary grammar school on split sites at either end of Enniskillen, which, of course, is an island town.

The reason for that course of action, we are told, is to allow for a sustainable Devenish College, which, of course, was to have a newbuild over 10 years ago. That was first promised when the Duke of Westminster High School was closed, and there have been many false starts since then. Last year, we were told by the Western Board that the new school building would come when Lisnaskea High School was closed, but, of course, it has not. Now the board tells us that to have a sustainable Devenish and, therefore, a newbuild, the two grammar schools must close and one new grammar school must be put in their place.

I, the board of governors, the parents, pupils and staff of the Collegiate and, as the petition shows, the community of Fermanagh reject this bizarre plan by the Western Education and Library Board. I say "bizarre" because Enniskillen Collegiate is the most oversubscribed school in any sector in County Fermanagh, and yet it faces closure. It is placed tenth in all of Northern Ireland for its GCSE results, and yet it faces closure. It is well regarded across Northern Ireland and, indeed, beyond for its excellence, and yet it faces closure. No wonder I call the decision "bizarre".

The supporters of the development proposal say that too many children have access to grammar-school education in Fermanagh. That does not factually stand up to scrutiny, as the lowest Association of Quality Education score accepted by the Collegiate is considerably higher than that accepted by many grammar schools across Northern Ireland. That is particularly true this year, with many girls being turned away. Indeed, there is an argument for increasing the numbers at the Collegiate rather than closing it.

Also, the argument that grammar schools are filling up at the expense of secondary schools does not stand up. Grammar-school intake has remained static due to a cap from the Department of Education. If numbers in Devenish College are going down despite the closure of other schools in the sector, it is because parents are exercising parental choice by opting for other non-selective schools in the area or, indeed, beyond. That is the reality, and closing the Collegiate will not change that trend. The Collegiate is very proud of its ethos, its results but, most of all, its girls.

In the most recent statistics regarding university access, the school was in the top eight in Northern Ireland, and the girls are certainly reaching their full potential. In that regard, I commend the leadership of the principal of the school, Elizabeth Armstrong, for her vision for the school in the future. I support her in that vision, but, more than that, so do the people of Fermanagh. I present this petition on their behalf.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I thank Mrs Foster for the petition. I will forward it to the Minister of Education, John O'Dowd, and send a copy to the Chairperson of the Committee, Mervyn Storey.

Ministerial Statements

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

In accordance with the requirements of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make the following statement on the 22nd summit meeting of the British-Irish Council (BIC), which took place at St Peter Port, Guernsey on 13 June 2014.

The deputy First Minister and I attended the summit on behalf of the Northern Ireland Executive, and we were accompanied by Danny Kennedy MLA, the Minister for Regional Development. The Government of Guernsey hosted the summit, and the heads of delegations were welcomed by the Chief Minister, Deputy Jonathan Le Tocq. The United Kingdom Government were led by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP. The Irish Government were led by the Taoiseach, Mr Enda Kenny TD. The Scottish Government were led by the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs, Ms Fiona Hyslop MSP. The Welsh Government were led by the Minister for Economy, Science and Transport, Ms Edwina Hart AM. The Government of Jersey were led by the Chief Minister, Senator Ian Gorst, and the Isle of Man Government delegation was led by the Chief Minister, the honourable Allan Bell MHK.

The summit provided another opportunity for the British-Irish Council to play its unique and important role in furthering, promoting and developing links between its member Administrations through positive, practical relationships and in providing a forum for consultation and exchange of information on matters of mutual interest.

As is now customary at each summit, the Council discussed the current economic situation. Each member Administration outlined their latest economic indicators and the strategies that they are putting in place, and we were pleased to be able to report the latest positive economic news from Northern Ireland.

The Council noted that the previous summit hosted by Guernsey had taken place four years ago in a very difficult and challenging economic environment, and it was encouraged by the positive signs of improvement now being reported by each Administration. The general tenor of the discussion suggested that there were grounds for cautious optimism about future economic prospects, but all Administrations also acknowledged the need to sustain their efforts in the areas of productivity, innovation, inward investment, exports, skills and reducing unemployment.

The Council also discussed the economic importance of transport links. The discussion reflected the island nature of all the Administrations and recognised our interdependence in ensuring and promoting the flow of people, goods and services among each other and further afield. The Council acknowledged that the promotion of effective transport links between member Administrations can be beneficial to their economic development and to the strengthening of positive and practical relationships amongst the people of these islands.

In that context, we and the other devolved administrations once more drew the attention of the United Kingdom Government to the negative effects of air passenger duty on the economic and social development of our regions. The Council also discussed how the member Administrations' strategic development initiatives should best interrelate in order to promote efficient and effective travel and trade between the jurisdictions.

The Council also received an update on the work that had taken place across each of the twelve British-Irish Council work sectors since the previous summit in November 2013. In particular, the Council welcomed the paper introduced by the Minister for Regional Development on the collaborative spatial planning work sector, setting out the various positions of the member Administrations. It noted the challenges and opportunities set out in the paper and requested officials to continue to work collaboratively via the group to identify opportunities to work more closely with other BIC work sectors.

The Council received the secretariat’s end-of-year progress report against its business plan. It also received a copy of the 2013 annual report and welcomed its publication. The Council also noted that the branding for BIC had been refreshed and was being used at the summit for the first time.

Finally, the Council noted that the next BIC summit would be hosted by the Isle of Man Government in November 2014.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the First Minister for his update. I note that there is no explicit reference in the statement to youth unemployment, which, I think, has been a previous focus of the Council. Will the First Minister provide the House with an update on any successful initiatives that have been undertaken by the Council in that area?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member is right: we have had two meetings of BIC at which youth unemployment was the key issue. It was referenced only to the extent that there had been a marginal decline in youth unemployment in the various member Administrations. Indeed, bad though youth unemployment is here, Northern Ireland has a lower level than many of the other Administrations present at the BIC summit.

Youth unemployment is being addressed here by a number of initiatives. If it has the opportunity at some stage, DEL will, no doubt, give details of its training initiatives. It is undertaking one initiative, the United Youth project, arising out of T:BUC, on behalf of the deputy First Minister and myself. Through that project, DEL envisages taking 10,000 young people and putting them on a scheme that will train them up in three separate areas for a one-year period. The three areas are steps into work, good citizenship and the cross-community element. We are playing our role in dealing with those figures, but a range of training initiatives is being undertaken by DEL as well.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the First Minister for his report to the House. Given the support of the other regions in the UK, does the First Minister believe that more concessions are possible in relation to air passenger duty?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I would not describe it as a gang up, but, certainly, the three devolved Administrations argued the same case on air passenger duty. As Members will be aware, the Northern Ireland Administration was the only part of the United Kingdom to be successful in having the power to decide its own level of air passenger duty for long-haul flights. We, as an Executive, moved that to zero to support the travel industry's long-haul flights. However, we are a peripheral part of the United Kingdom, so if people want to get to the capital of the United Kingdom, they have to travel by air or sea. That means that we are at a disadvantage to many other parts of the United Kingdom in cost terms. Of course, the same can be said of Scotland, particularly. We are pressing on the issue.

Changes to air passenger duty were announced by the Chancellor, but they were simply to consolidate three of the bands of air passenger duty relating to long-haul flights into one. They do not affect Northern Ireland, because we are already exempt from that. However, we continue to press on the basis of our economic pact with the Government; it is one of the issues being considered. However, I warn the Assembly that if we were to be successful, the European Union would require us to have a reduction in our block grant to take account of that, and that is likely to be somewhere in the region of £60 million to £90 million.

Megan Fearon (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I note that the First Minister referred to the high level of economic discussion that was had, and that is important in the current challenging environment. However, was any focus given to the rising cost of living and what we can do to tackle and alleviate hardships on families and young people?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It was not discussed specifically, although, in general terms, it is always an issue that has to be taken into account. We welcomed the fact that unemployment levels across the Administrations were reducing. Not all Administrations, of course, have suffered an economic downturn; the Isle of Man has had consistent growth and, I think, has about two people unemployed.

In some areas, it is a greater problem than in others.

Members will have seen the latest labour force survey figures, which show that, for the seventeenth consecutive month, we have had a reduction in the claimant count in Northern Ireland. That is a good signal. The best way to get people out of poverty and deprivation is for them to get into employment. That is an important factor. It is a matter that the Executive continue to keep under consideration, and we do whatever we can, given the limited budget we have available to us, to help in that regard.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad Aire as ucht a ráitis. Chím ins an ráiteas go bhfuil tagairt do na ranna oibre ach níl mórán mionsonraí ins an ráiteas faoin méid atá gnóthaithe acu agus ba mhaith liom ceist a chur ar an Chéad Aire. An bhfuil sé sásta go bhfuil obair chruthaitheach á déanamh ag na ranna oibre?

I thank the First Minister for his statement. There is a reference to the 12 work sectors, but there is not much detail about what has been achieved by them. Is the First Minister satisfied that there is a tangible outcome from the work of the 12 sectors?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

There was not much detail because they are not discussed; you simply take possession of the reports from each of them. Of course, several of those are led by our Ministers. I am not sure which particular work stream the Member has an interest in, but I am sure that the Minister with responsibility for that area will be very happy to give him further details. None of the Ministers we have on any of the work streams has indicated any impatience about slow progress being made, so I must assume that things are going swimmingly.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the First Minister for his statement. He referred to the economic importance of transport links among each other and further afield, so I hope that I am not stretching the limit slightly by asking whether there has been any discussion around links with the important European capitals. It is easy enough to get to Majorca from here, but you cannot get to Dusseldorf, Paris or Brussels. Has there been any discussion around that?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Part of the discussion is about identifying where there may be new routes and where there is a demand. One of the aspects of the work being carried out by our Regional Development Minister, who is leading the work stream on that area, is getting reliable data as to the movements of people and goods. Those are the kinds of factors. There is then a decision to be taken as to whether there is a sufficient clientele to open up an air route or sea passage, and, if that is the case, whether — remember that most of those are commercially driven — there is any role for intervention on the part of government.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

In the context of strengthening east-west relations, I particularly welcome the announcement yesterday of the Open coming to my constituency of East Londonderry.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the First Minister give us the potential benefits of the announcement for Northern Ireland?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I hope that the local newspaper is listening closely to what is being said.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

It already knows. [Laughter.]

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The deputy First Minister and I were very pleased to join the Enterprise Minister, Arlene Foster, for the announcement. It must have taken people quite by surprise when we announced it yesterday, given some of the trailers that had been run for the occasion. It is a significant development. I remind people that it is putting Royal Portrush on the rota, which means that we are not necessarily talking about a one-off event; we are talking about the potential for it being part of an ongoing rota of locations throughout the United Kingdom that are used for the Open.

It indicates that we have facilities that can match those you will find anywhere else in the nation. It also indicates the high regard for golf that there is in Northern Ireland. When the European Tour came to Royal Portrush, it had its largest ever attendance, which indicates that we have a population that is keen to visit golf tournaments. That was one of the factors that convinced the R&A that it should look to Royal Portrush as a potential venue.

On the wider front, this will obviously have a significant impact in the constituency represented by the Member. It may have a bit of disruption during the Open itself, but that is a small price to pay for the advertising that the local area will have across the world. About 90 million people will be watching over a long period and will see the scenery of the north Antrim coast. That is the kind of publicity and advertising that you just could not pay for. It is an excellent opportunity for people to see what they can come and see.

Having a championship course is no small thing in itself. The golf tourism industry is sizeable throughout the world, and golfers like to play championship courses. People can go round a championship course and pretend to themselves that they are taking part in the Open. Golf tourism is a very significant part of our tourism investment in Northern Ireland.

There are many reasons to be optimistic, if one represents that constituency, but it is also good for Northern Ireland. It indicates that we have moved on from the dark days of the past. This is the benefit of having a new era in Northern Ireland, where there is a level of peace and stability that we have not had for many generations.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I was tempted to ask the First Minister whether the issue of an Enniskillen bypass was discussed, given the importance of economic transport links between member Administrations and the fact that this is the first anniversary of the G8.

To be serious, may I ask the First Minister whether there was discussion of the issue of free travel between member states for tourists coming from selected countries far away, such as the Far East, given that people who come in through Belfast or Derry can travel around the rest of Ireland freely but those who come in through the South cannot come up North because of visa restrictions? Was that matter discussed, or can the First Minister give us any kind of update on it?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It was not discussed at the summit, but it has been discussed by the deputy First Minister and me in the context of the economic pact that we have with Her Majesty's Government. Indeed, the Prime Minister has had a meeting with the Taoiseach on the issue. I have spoken to the Taoiseach on the issue as well, and I have to say that the response was positive. It is on the agenda and is part of the economic pact. Over the next couple of days, the deputy First Minister and I are due to have conversations with the Prime Minister on the progress being made on the economic pact. I assure the Member that this is one of the issues that we will want to speak about.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the First Minister for his statement to the House this morning. He has already touched on our lower rate of youth unemployment. Can he tell the House how our economic recovery compares with the other United Kingdom jurisdictions?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am glad to say that there seems to be a fairly even spread in the recovery process. The reason I am glad about that is that, on all occasions in the past, Northern Ireland has been last to come out of any economic downturn. It has often taken us a number of years to get back to previous levels while the rest of the United Kingdom has been getting on with life as if nothing had happened. This is a change in the patterns that have developed in the past.

As the labour force statistics show, our unemployment is now down to 6·9%. Given the number of job announcements that we have had and some that, we know, are in the pipeline, there is every indication that we will continue to reduce unemployment further. Indeed, in a survey, 58% of local employers indicated their intention of employing additional personnel during the next 12 months. Those are all indicators that things are moving in the right direction.

That is not an indication that we should in any way be complacent, however. A lot of work is required, and there are considerable pressures, particularly on our Budget, given that the United Kingdom Government have been holding down revenue streams and putting money more towards capital streams. That presents a considerable difficulty to our Administration in the programmes that we develop.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I note the reference in the statement to the discussion of the economic importance of transport links and the promotion of effective ones. In that context, has there been any discussion about essential improvements to the A75, which is such a key link for our freight industry into the rest of the United Kingdom? I ask because, when one looks at the BIC's 2013 report, the sorts of things that are mentioned when focusing on the transport sector are the coordination of smart card technology and the mutual recognition of blue badges. Those may be important in their own right, but perhaps more strategic issues, such as the A75, are really where better economic prosperity lies. Does the First Minister agree?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I agree that they are very important, but I do not agree that they have not been discussed. I simply do not know whether they have been discussed, because the work goes on within the work streams, and the Minister for Regional Development is our representative there.

I had a discussion in the margins: the A75, I think I am right in saying, is the Scottish road. I had a discussion with Fiona Hyslop during the break in the summit. She referred to our having discussions about the A75, so that must be ongoing. I will get the Minister responsible for the Department for Regional Development to write to the Member on the issue. Of course, it is a strategic route, not just for Northern Ireland but for many of the hauliers in the Republic of Ireland, so there are benefits for a number of the member Administrations in having it improved.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I will make a statement on the eighteenth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in environment sectoral format, which was held in Armagh on Thursday 8 May 2014. The statement has been agreed with Minister Kennedy.

Danny Kennedy MLA, the Minister for Regional Development, and I represented the Northern Ireland Executive at the meeting. The Irish Government were represented by Phil Hogan TD, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. I chaired the meeting.

Ministers had a discussion on various priorities within their remit and noted that those will be contained in a report to be considered at a future NSMC institutional meeting as part of the ongoing review of sectoral priorities. Ministers noted that the contract for the all-island air quality research study into airborne pollution from the combustion of residential solid fuels, in particular smoky coal, has been awarded and that the study is expected to be completed by August 2014.

The council welcomed the consideration by the North/South market development steering group of a new programme related to the circular economy. It requires a new way of thinking in all aspects of the value chain and aims to keep the added value in products for as long as possible and to cut residual waste to close to zero. Ministers noted that the Northern Ireland carrier bag levy, currently applied to single-use bags, will be extended to low-cost reusable bags from January 2015. Ministers also welcomed the engagement in discussions on the proposals for a new used tyre scheme in Ireland and the exploration of the potential for a complementary scheme in Northern Ireland.

The Council noted that the proposed programme of work for 2014-15 is in the process of being reviewed and agreed. The Ministers also welcomed the intention of beginning shortly the waste repatriation at the first of those sites scheduled in the programme. Ministers also noted that Dublin City Council has established a framework agreement for the disposal of repatriated waste and continues to progress the public procurement process for the haulage of excavated waste to authorised disposal facilities. Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to continue to target resources on joint enforcement action against illegal operators and called on relevant Departments to engage on tackling this issue.

The Council noted that coordination is continuing between both jurisdictions in relation to preparations for the second-cycle river basin management plans under the EU water framework directive. The Council welcomed the publication in Northern Ireland of the consultation on significant water management issues.

Ministers welcomed the provision of funding by both jurisdictions for the cross-border pilot project for the management of invasive flora and fauna on the River Blackwater in Northern Ireland and continued cooperation on beach awards and beach care schemes such as Blue Flag and the Coca-Cola Coast Care scheme run by An Taisce and Keep Northern Ireland Beautiful. The Council also welcomed the commencement of discussions on common approaches to the implementation of the marine strategy framework directive.

Ministers noted that tenders for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) research project into the environmental impacts of unconventional gas exploration and extraction are being evaluated. The Council noted that the Northern Ireland Environment Agency’s (NIEA) second state of the environment report was published in December 2013. Ministers welcomed the publication of the EPA’s 'Who's Who' of environmental research expertise in Ireland, which will assist collaboration by environmental researchers from the island of Ireland in Europe-wide research projects.

Ministers also noted that the EPA’s research strategy for 2014-2020 will be published by the end of June 2014 and that, consequent to the enactment of the Industrial Development (Science Foundation Ireland) (Amendment) Act 2013, Science Foundation Ireland may now fund environmental research on an all-island basis.

The Council agreed to hold the next environment meeting in November 2014.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I am sure the Minister is aware that the Committee carried out an inquiry into used tyre disposal a couple of years ago. One of the recommendations in the report was:

"Northern Ireland should liaise with the Republic of Ireland when considering a suitable mechanism for dealing with used tyres. A strict producer responsibility scheme would be counterproductive unless introduced in both jurisdictions".

Will the Minister elaborate on what sort of used tyre scheme they are developing in Ireland and how it might impact on Northern Ireland? Will we work together to have a complementary scheme?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Chairperson, Ms Lo, for her question. I have held bilateral discussions with Minister Hogan on the subject. His Department is developing detailed proposals to replace the current tyre schemes in the South with a full producer responsibility scheme. Minister Hogan has invited officials from my Department to join a working group established by his Department to develop those proposals. I have only too willingly accepted that invitation and feel pretty sure that that collaboration will help to ensure a joined-up approach on the issue right across the island.

Whatever tyre scheme is eventually implemented in the South, it will be important that it is compatible with existing and future arrangements for the management of used tyres here to avoid negative consequences North or South. With that in mind, my officials and I will consider the detailed proposals emerging from the South, with a view to tabling proposals for a complementary UK-wide scheme for agreement with colleagues in England, Scotland and Wales. It will be necessary to reach that type of agreement if such a scheme is to be introduced effectively in the North.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement, not least because, had it been his predecessor, he would only be about halfway through the statement by now. The subject of the cross-border movement of waste comes up again and again at North/South meetings on environmental issues. That is particularly the case with the sites where waste has been illegally dumped, and there seems to be consistent promises of actions. Will the Minister put some meat on the bones? The statement refers to:

"the intention of beginning shortly the waste repatriation at the first of these sites scheduled in the programme."

When specifically are we due to see the first removal and repatriation of waste? By what stage do we hope to have the waste removal from those sites completed?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr Weir for that question. I am pretty sure that he is aware of the commitment in the road map agreement with our counterparts in the Republic of Ireland to undertake the repatriation of waste. In total, 17 sites were identified, with an estimated total of 273,000 tons of waste to be removed.

I welcome the level of cooperation that has existed between the two Departments and competent authorities since the signing of the framework agreement. A total of nine sites have been completed since repatriation began in 2010, giving a total of 76,000 tons of waste to date. It is extremely important that the remaining sites, some of which contain the larger amounts and quantities of waste, are repatriated in a timely manner to minimise potential environmental harm or damage.

This year's work programme is still being finalised, but I expect that the removal of waste from three — hopefully, four — sites will be done this year. I expect work on the first site to start by the end of this month. It may have already started, and I will come back to the Member on that.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabhail leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra go dtí an pointe seo agus as ucht a ráitis fosta. I want to ask the Minister about the planning aspects of wind energy policy and the possible future focus on that in the North/South Ministerial Council. Does the Minister see any merit in a single island approach to wind energy policy? I think specifically of setback and separation distances of wind infrastructure from residents.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabhail leis an Uasal McElduff as an cheist. I thank Mr McElduff for that question. The issue of wind energy has become more and more controversial in the North. That is not exclusive to the North; it is being experienced similarly in the Republic of Ireland. We share a land border, and there are often proposals for wind turbines or wind farms along the border that have as much impact on those living in the North as on those living in the South and vice versa. Therefore, I certainly see some merit in Mr McElduff's suggestion. I have had informal discussions about it with my officials, and I have had an informal chat with Minister Hogan. I see merit in it and shall pursue it.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for his statement. What is his view of the benefits of working with the Irish Government through the NSMC to tackle the difficulties with climate change?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr Eastwood for that question. Whilst Ministers and officials engage bilaterally in mitigation and adaptation with colleagues in the South, a more formal arrangement through the NSMC would ensure wider engagement on relevant interests to everyone's benefit. There are many areas of climate change where increased and enhanced cooperation within the NSMC structure would be beneficial. For example, following the recent extreme weather events right across this island and, indeed, beyond, which resulted in severe flooding, it would be mutually beneficial to learn lessons and cooperate where appropriate on this environmental, economic and social problem. The jurisdictions also have a common goal to ensure that greenhouse gas emissions are minimised and to support the development of a low-carbon economy. It has been the practice that Ministers on both sides of the border have met bilaterally to discuss common issues, including climate change, and it is also the case that climate change has been an issue of huge interest within the British-Irish Council structure, and I know that there was a statement on that earlier. Officials have been working on climate change mitigation and adaptation. They keep each other briefed on policy developments and participate jointly in conferences and other events. A lot of cooperation is ongoing that, I believe, could and should be enhanced, and it will be.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Obviously, he will be aware of the importance or non-importance attached to fracking in County Fermanagh and other areas of Northern Ireland. The Minister's statement notes that tenders for the Environmental Protection Agency's research project will be initiated. What input will the Department of the Environment or any other Department of the Northern Ireland Executive have into that report and research?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for that question. I think that he might have beaten Mr Flanagan to the punch on that one. Fracking is a hugely important and controversial issue in Fermanagh especially but also right across the North and, indeed, the world. Therefore, it is vital that we carry out as much research as possible into the potential dangers and risks associated with it. That is why I have been keen for my Department to work with the EPA on this research programme.

NIEA had initially committed to co-funding the all-Ireland research programme with £50,000 in 2014-15 and the same amount the following year. The earlier answers that I gave in the Assembly were based on these figures. However, given the increased attention that the issue is attracting in the Chamber and throughout Ireland and the UK, the agency wished to ensure that maximum value was realised from the research programme. We, therefore, believed that a more significant contribution was required to put the agency on a more equal footing with the other two funding partners, which have committed €500,000 each. So we are on a more equal footing but still nowhere near an equal footing. My Department will contribute £100,000 in this financial year and £100,000 in the next financial year.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mrs Cameron for her question. Some would say that the Department also ignores offences committed in the North when dealing with applications for licences here. More work needs to be done on identifying who is a fit and proper person to have a waste licence. That will involve increased and enhanced cooperation with our neighbours in the South as we share a land border.

People commit crimes on both sides of the border. It is something that I certainly will want to look at, and I will want to look at the procedures and processes that the Department or the agency use when assessing applications and to have a complete overhaul of that system, which, at times, seems over-cumbersome for good and legitimate operators, yet huge gaps remain in it that can be exploited by opportunistic criminals.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas. The Minister raised the issue of UGEE. Obviously, some technocrat somewhere has taken issue with the use of the word "fracking", but I think that we should continue to call it fracking and should not hide behind any smokescreen of whatever UGEE is supposed to be.

Will the Minister indicate to the House why, despite the fact that, as he has acknowledged himself in a written answer to me, a significant number of the 1,356 respondents to the public consultation on the research programme indicted that they wanted to see a health impact assessment carried out, that is not being included as part of the work? Both Governments are now spending nearly €1 million on it. It will be a waste of money if it is not done right. Will the Minister explain to the House why it has not been included and whether there is any chance that he could change his mind and actually put it in?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr Flanagan for that question. The research that has been commissioned into fracking and its potential harmful and ill effects is not and will not be exhaustive. In March, I visited the EPA in Washington to have a look at the research that it has carried out over a number of years at a cost of some $20 million, and that, in itself, is, as yet, far from conclusive. I can tell the Member and those who called for a health assessment to be part of this study that any planning application that comes forward for anything associated with fracking will be subject to a full health assessment.

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

I note the Minister's answers to the last two questions about fracking. It seems to me that the debate on fracking has not yet reached the point where people can make full decisions. Will the Minister give a sense of where we are at with that debate, North and South and within the context of the North/South Ministerial Council?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for that question. I reiterate to the Member my decision on fracking, which is that, in the absence of sound evidence that fracking is safe, is not harmful to the environment and is not harmful to human health, no application for fracking will be passed. In my opinion and that of the Member, and any Member who has raised the subject of fracking here, that evidence does not currently exist. Given what I learned from my visit to the EPA in Washington, it is unlikely to exist in the foreseeable future.

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

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his report. Minister, you refer to the environment, air pollution and smoky coal. It is my experience that there are smoke control zones and, therefore, people there should not be using smoky coals. What are your views on the burning of other hydrocarbons, such as lignite and, indeed, peat?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr Cree for that question. Air pollution from residential combustion of solid fuels is of significant concern to both jurisdictions. The Northern Ireland levels of certain carcinogenic air pollutants known to be produced, particularly by burning smoky coal, can reach and sometimes exceed EU target levels. However, as the Member quite rightly pointed out, it is not only smoky coal that causes damage to our environment and our health. Therefore, when the levels for what is "smoky" coal are set, as they have been in the Republic and will potentially be here in the future, they encompass other fuels as well, believe it or not. In the Republic, peat falls under the level, so it is deemed non-smoky. The levels that are proposed or which will be set here for the purposes of this study are much lower than those in the Republic, so, in this jurisdiction, peat would be above the level and would therefore be classified as a smoky fuel.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I think that the Minister identified 17 illegal dumping sites, of which nine have been cleansed and eight remain. If my calculations are right, that leaves 197,000 tons to be removed. Will the Minister tell us how many prosecutions are pending for the nine sites that have been cleansed?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his question. In my answer to Mr Weir, I outlined the extent of work that was still to be done in the repatriation of waste. I do not have at hand the information on the number of prosecutions associated with sites that have been cleansed. However, I will certainly get back to the Member on that in writing.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

First, I am surprised at the way in which the Minister has ruled out any permission for fracking applications before he has even heard them or his Department has considered them.

To follow up on Lord Morrow's question about illegal dumping sites where waste from the Republic was dumped in Northern Ireland: this is an issue that was first raised when I was Environment Minister. At that stage, the Irish Republic agreed that it would cover the cost of clearing those sites, since the rubbish had come from the Republic. Given the passage of time and the way in which the costs are likely to have escalated, has his Department any figures on what the cost of clearing the rest of the sites will be? Secondly, if the cost has gone up, has it been discussed with Ministers from the Republic how that additional cost will be dealt with by the Exchequer in the Republic and not fall to the public purse in Northern Ireland?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr Wilson for his question. I am not sure whether he heard my earlier answers because I am pretty sure that I did not rule out permission for any applications for fracking. I ruled out any permission for fracking, or anything associated with it, in the absence of evidence that it is safe and sustainable. As yet, that evidence does not exist.

On Mr Wilson's question about the repatriation of waste and the cost of doing that: the cost will still lie with the Republic of Ireland, which accepts sole responsibility for it. As Mr Wilson quite rightly pointed out, the cost has gone up. Therefore, the programme has undoubtedly slowed down as a consequence. I do not have the exact cost here, although I can get it to the Member later this afternoon. However, conversations are ongoing between the DOE and Minister Hogan's Department on this issue. We are looking at the possible use of sites in the North for this waste, maybe to cut down on fuel costs and so forth.

Executive Committee Business

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

As no amendments have been tabled, there is no opportunity to discuss the Budget (No. 2) Bill today. Members will, of course, be able to have a full debate at Final Stage. The Further Consideration Stage of the Bill is, therefore, concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Committee Business

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 30 November 2014, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Work and Families Bill [NIA Bill 34/11-15].

On Monday 12 May 2014, the Assembly referred the Work and Families Bill to the Committee for Employment and Learning for scrutiny. The intent of the Bill is to allow working parents the ability to manage their parental and work priorities with flexibility.

At its meeting on 26 March 2014, the Committee for Employment and Learning agreed to call for written evidence and submissions from organisations and individuals. In addition, signposting notices were posted in the local press. The Committee believes it is essential that all stakeholders are given the opportunity to comment on the Bill, as it will impact on employers and employees.

Although scrutiny of the Bill is likely to be straightforward, it is a substantial piece of legislation with 24 clauses and two schedules, and the Committee wishes to fully examine in detail the impact of each of the clauses and speak to all parties who wish to make representations on the Bill. The Committee believes that it is essential that it is afforded the time to exercise its scrutiny powers to the full and asks the House to support the motion to extend the Committee Stage of the Work and Families Bill to 30 November 2014.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

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

As the next three motions relate to amendments to Standing Orders, I propose to conduct the debate as follows. I propose to group motions (a) to (c) as detailed in the Order Paper and conduct a single debate. I will ask the Clerk to read the first motion in the group, and will then call the Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures to move it. Debate will then take place on all three motions in the group.

When all who wish to speak have done so, I will put the Question on motion (a). I will then ask the Chairperson to move formally motions (b) and (c) in turn, and I will put the Question on each motion without further debate. I remind the House that cross-community support will be required. If that is clear, I shall proceed.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I beg to move

(a) After Standing Order 37, insert –

"37A. Public Bills: Exceptional Further Consideration Stage

(1) If, after the Further Consideration Stage of a Bill, and prior to its Final Stage, the Minister or member of the Assembly in charge of the Bill submits a statement to the Speaker, in writing, asserting—

(a) that, as a consequence of an amendment made to the Bill, either a provision of the Bill is outside the legislative competence of the Assembly, or the Bill has a serious technical defect, and

(b) that the Assembly had not fully considered prior to making, or not making, any relevant amendment that the Bill might, as a result, be outside the legislative competence of the Assembly or have a serious technical defect,

the Bill shall be set down on the list of pending future business until a date for Exceptional Further Consideration Stage is determined.

(2) A statement submitted to the Speaker under paragraph (1) shall be circulated to all members of the Assembly, as soon as is practicable, and published in a manner determined by the Speaker.

(3) An amendment proposed to a Bill at Exceptional Further Consideration Stage shall only be selected if the Speaker is satisfied—

(a) that the amendment is intended either -

(i) to bring the Bill within the legislative competence of the Assembly, or

(ii) to correct any serious technical defect;

(b) that the proposed amendment deals with a matter specified in the statement under paragraph (1)(a) and which has arisen as a consequence of an amendment made to the Bill; and

(c) that the Assembly had not fully considered prior to making, or not making, any relevant amendment that the Bill might, as a result, be outside the legislative competence of the Assembly or have a serious technical defect.

(4) Subject to paragraphs (1) to (3) above, the provisions of Standing Order 37 and Standing Order 39 shall apply to Exceptional Further Consideration Stage of a Bill as if in those Standing Orders for ‘Further Consideration Stage’ there were substituted ‘Exceptional Further Consideration Stage’.".

The following motions stood in the Order Paper:

(b) In Standing Order 31, line 1, after "33(1)" insert –

"37A,".

"(19A) Paragraphs (17) to (19) apply to Exceptional Further Consideration Stage as

they do to Further Consideration Stage.".

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. On behalf of the Committee on Procedures, I am pleased to bring these motions to amend Standing Orders to the House today.

Motion (a) inserts a new Standing Order to provide for an Exceptional Further Consideration Stage. Motions (b) and (c) are consequential amendments. Perhaps I could begin by giving the background to the proposed amendments.

During the last mandate, Members may recall that, following Further Consideration Stage of the Justice Bill, the Speaker took the view that, due to an amendment made at that stage, certain provisions of the Bill were outside the legislative competence of the Assembly. Currently, the Assembly has no procedure to enable the correction of such a defect after Further Consideration Stage. Section 10(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is designed to ensure that a Bill shall not be introduced if the presiding officer decides that any provision is outside the legislative competence of the Assembly.

There are also provisions in the Act and in Standing Orders for a mechanism to amend a Bill after Final Stage. Reconsideration Stage is where the Bill comes back to the Assembly after Final Stage. That could happen in a limited number of circumstances, including cases where the Supreme Court decides that any provision is outside the legislative competence of the Assembly or where the British Secretary of State decides to not forward the Bill for Royal Assent.

As a result of the lack of provision to correct defects during the passage of a Bill, the Speaker used his discretion in respect of the Justice Bill to hold an Exceptional Further Consideration Stage to enable the House to debate a single amendment to bring the Bill back within legislative competence. That required the House agreeing to suspend Standing Orders 39(1) and 42(1).

The Committee on Procedures was asked to consider whether a mechanism could be established to correct a Bill after Further Consideration Stage and prior to Final Stage rather than passing it, only for it to be returned for reconsideration. Obviously, if that happened toward the end of a mandate, the Assembly might be dissolved before it had an opportunity to reconsider the Bill.

Options were put to the Committee regarding how best it could deal with issues of legislative competence being identified before Final Stage. Those included dealing with them on an ad hoc basis, relying on the Speaker’s discretion and the precedent set by the Justice Bill, and including provisions in Standing Orders. The Committee concluded that Standing Orders should make provision for a new amending stage rather than issues of legislative competence being dealt with on an ad hoc basis. The new stage would occur in very narrowly defined circumstances after Further Consideration Stage and prior to Final Stage.

The new Standing Order — Standing Order 37A — sets out the procedure for an Exceptional Further Consideration Stage. As the name suggests, that stage would be used only in exceptional circumstances and not routinely to correct drafting errors or to propose amendments. Its use would be restricted to circumstances where a legislative competence issue or serious technical defect has arisen due to amendments made during the passage of a Bill. The Speaker will interpret and apply admissibility criteria in respect of amendments tabled at that stage.

Today's motions will ensure that the Assembly has a procedure in place for dealing with those issues. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee, I commend the motions to the House.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I welcome the opportunity to conclude today’s debate on the motions to amend Standing Orders, which provide for an Exceptional Further Consideration Stage.

I thank the Chairperson for his opening remarks. As he outlined, motion (a) will insert a new Standing Order — Standing Order 37A — to provide for an Exceptional Further Consideration Stage. Motions (b) and (c) are consequential amendments.

The new stage, as described, provides for a corrective mechanism in the event of any amendments to a Bill during its passage taking it outside of the Assembly’s legislative competence or a serious technical defect being identified. Only amendments that are likely to rectify those issues will be selected by the Speaker at the Exceptional Further Consideration Stage. I commend the motions to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

(a) After Standing Order 37, insert –

"37A. Public Bills: Exceptional Further Consideration Stage

(a) that, as a consequence of an amendment made to the Bill, either a provision of the Bill is outside the legislative competence of the Assembly, or the Bill has a serious technical defect, and

the Bill shall be set down on the list of pending future business until a date for Exceptional Further Consideration Stage is determined.

(2) A statement submitted to the Speaker under paragraph (1) shall be circulated to all members of the Assembly, as soon as is practicable, and published in a manner determined by the Speaker.

(3) An amendment proposed to a Bill at Exceptional Further Consideration Stage shall only be selected if the Speaker is satisfied—

(a) that the amendment is intended either -

(i) to bring the Bill within the legislative competence of the Assembly, or

(ii) to correct any serious technical defect;

(b) that the proposed amendment deals with a matter specified in the statement under paragraph (1)(a) and which has arisen as a consequence of an amendment made to the Bill; and

Resolved (with cross-community support):

(b) In Standing Order 31, line 1, after "33(1)" insert –

"37A,".

Resolved (with cross-community support):

"(19A) Paragraphs (17) to (19) apply to Exceptional Further Consideration Stage as

they do to Further Consideration Stage.".

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

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to two hours for the debate. The proposer will have 15 minutes in which to propose the motion and 15 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move

That this Assembly approves the report of the Committee for Education on its inquiry into the Education and Training Inspectorate and the school improvement process [NIA 132/11-15]; and calls on the Minister of Education to implement the recommendations contained in the report.

The inquiry into the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) and the school improvement process is the second inquiry that the Education Committee has undertaken in this mandate. Members received written submissions from around 60 stakeholders and undertook around 17 oral evidence sessions. There were two informal events and a school visit, and we spent about half of the present session of the Assembly considering and deliberating on the evidence.

I take the opportunity at the outset to thank the many witnesses to the inquiry, including schools, principals, teachers, academics, district inspectors, associate assessors and representative organisations. I also want to thank the Department, in particular the Education and Training Inspectorate, for its responses and cooperation. As Chairperson of the Committee, I also express my gratitude to the other members of the Education Committee for their enthusiasm and hard work throughout the inquiry. Finally, I pass on, on behalf of the Committee, our thanks to the staff of the Education Committee, particularly our Committee Clerk and his staff, for organising the evidence sessions and for compiling what, I believe, has turned out to be a longer than expected report. Their hard work and diligence on the matter is very much appreciated, and I want to place on record that thanks today.

It is a long report, with a smaller than usual number of findings and recommendations, and I want to take a little time to highlight a few of the issues to the House. First, and for the avoidance of doubt, let me be very clear that the members of the Education Committee, separately and collectively, agree that professional inspection of the effectiveness of our schools is a good idea. The concept sits very well with the values of the teaching profession, which quite rightly sees itself as being reflective, striving for improvement and focusing on delivering the best educational experience for all our children.

Members agreed that inspection, as intended in the Every School a Good School policy, usually provides some useful direction for schools on their improvement journey. So, inspection is clearly a good thing. However, it is equally clear that simply and repeatedly inspecting our schools will not in itself make them any better. Imagine if a teacher had a child who is underachieving in the school. Simply telling that child repeatedly that their attainment is inadequate or unsatisfactory will not, on its own, make the child any smarter or make their performance any better. The child needs to be helped and properly supported. As it is with children, so it is with schools.

The Committee has heard before about significant reductions in the Curriculum Advisory and Support Service (CASS) for schools and the adverse impact that it has on school improvement. Members were, however, disturbed by suggestions from witnesses to the inquiry that some sectors were considerably better off than others in that regard. I think that that, if true, is unfair and makes no sense whatsoever. I also think that that was not the intention of the Every School a Good School policy.

The Committee's first recommendation is therefore for proper support for school improvement services. The Committee also recommends a stronger alignment between inspection and support, as is currently the practice in Scotland. This will ensure that there is, as the OECD recommended, a balance between the challenge provided by the inspectors to schools and the support that schools must have if they are to improve.

The Committee, when taking evidence, was greatly struck by the very different perceptions of the Education and Training Inspectorate. To be sure, inspection is an uncomfortable process and will, from time to time, lead to difficult exchanges and even some ill feeling, particularly if inspection results are poorer than a school expects. That ill feeling may explain some of the negative evidence submitted to the Committee. That said, the very great differences in schools’ experience and the mass of associated evidence cannot be so easily explained. It is on that point that I want to digress for one moment. I trust that the inspectorate does not see the report as an attack but as a genuine attempt by the Education Committee, and those who collectively make it up, to reflect the genuine concerns and fears of many schools about the process. A simple dismissal, "We do not recognise that fear exists", is not acceptable and does not face up to the realities.

Why does the inspection experience vary so much? That is a question that we need answers to. There are a number of reasons. By way of context, let me briefly explain one of them: area planning and its impact on inspection. I can advise the House that it appears to be widely believed by schools that a bad inspection report can lead to a significant reduction in parental confidence and, therefore, enrolment. That, in turn, it is argued, can make a school unsustainable and even lead to its closure. It appears that the area-planning process, with its focus on the sustainability of schools, has had quite a lot to do with the new context for school inspections. I will not comment on the process itself, but what I will say is that area planning has certainly altered perceptions and raised the stakes for schools during the inspection process.

The question then is what is to be done? The Committee believes that, in the first instance, everyone must recognise that there is a new inspection landscape. That said, inspection reports must, of course, continue to provide parents with a clear understanding of a school’s strengths and weaknesses. However, that must be done in such a way that a school is not inadvertently misrepresented and, consequently, its sustainability unfairly undermined.

The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Department do away with the one-word summaries of school performance. No longer should schools be labelled “unsatisfactory” or “inadequate”, or even “good” or “outstanding”. Those descriptors misrepresent the breadth of educational experience in many schools. They do a disservice to schools and can often inadvertently mislead parents into believing that a school is all good or all bad when that is simply not the case.

The Committee recommends a similar practice to that adopted in some other jurisdictions, where single-word descriptors are replaced by more meaningful text. The Committee also recommends that two reports be produced for every school inspection. There should be an internal formative document designed to help improvement, and it should be accompanied by a more summative publication, in the public domain, which will explain in plain English where a school is strong and where it needs to improve. These reports should be free of coded references and jargon and clear enough for everyone to understand. Therein lies a huge challenge for the current process.

When I say "everyone", I really mean parents. They are the key group in the school improvement process who, so far, have had limited or no opportunity to take part. The Committee agrees with leading educationalists and the OECD report that the Department has missed a trick by not doing more to include parents.

Every email press release that the Department sends to the Committee carries a link to the Education Works campaign. The campaign is designed to encourage more parents to get involved with their child's education. The principle behind the campaign is endorsed by everyone. It is therefore surprising that one arm of the Department promotes that message increasingly and another — the key delivery partner in Every School a Good School; the Education and Training Inspectorate — does not. Indeed, ETI indicated that it has had almost no recent engagement with parents, other than through its inspection questionnaires. As I said before, that does not make sense. It is for that reason that the Committee recommends, in line with the OECD report, that a representative parental consultation platform be established. That will, it is hoped, be the gateway through which many more parents get involved with and contribute to the school improvement process.

During its deliberations, the Committee was also more than a little taken aback by the poor relations, incessant sniping and high levels of misunderstanding and frustration amongst education stakeholders. It seems that relationships generally are in need of repair. A good beginning would be for the inspectorate to have a complaints procedure that commands greater confidence. A reformed procedure should admit the possibility of error or revision by ETI and allow for investigations to be undertaken, in some instances, by outside personnel. That would go some way to improve relations, enhance perceptions and secure more buy-in for school inspection.

A number of changes are proposed in the report, and I have mentioned some of those. My colleagues on the Committee will explore the other changes during the debate, including the treatment of the value added by schools, the important role of the district inspectors, the promotion of self-evaluation and changes to the use of questionnaires. The Committee agrees that all those changes amount to a new beginning for inspection and school improvement.

A new beginning needs a new name. The Committee for Education has therefore proposed a rebranding of ETI as the Northern Ireland Education Improvement Service. The new name and brand would signal a break with the past and an explicit commitment to a two-way collaborative model of school improvement, which will combine inspection with adequate levels of support for schools.

A majority of Members also felt that the linkage between the Department and the new school improvement service needed substantial change. A majority of Members had concerns in respect of the relationship, or perceived relationship, between the Department and ETI. Those Members felt that the Department had recently proved itself to be both immune to criticism and oblivious to good advice. Examples of that are the implementation of the computer-based assessment process, levels of progression and the original proposals for the common funding formula scheme, to name but a few. ETI, on the other hand, was perceived by some as simply being the enforcement arm of the Department. That sometimes widespread view tended to undermine the professional authority of the inspectorate's findings.

What is required is a statutorily independent, professional organisation that can report, without fear or favour, in respect of all aspects of education policy. A majority of Members want to see that role undertaken by the new Northern Ireland Education Improvement Service. Those Members also want all communications between the new body and the Department to be transparent and understandable.

This is the time of year when schoolchildren get their end-of-term report. I am going to resist the temptation to boil down our 1,300-page report to a single word or simple throwaway catchphrase, like "must do better" or "needs improvement", however apt that might be in this instance. Instead, I will say that the Committee believes that a reformed, rebranded and independent inspectorate will be more than capable of delivering a much-needed school improvement process. The recommendations will address perception and trust issues and lead to a more collaborative relationship and productive outcomes for all. As Chairman of the Education Committee, I therefore commend the report to the House.

In conclusion, I want to make a few comments as a Member of the House and as the DUP education spokesperson. The report, I trust, will not be yet another that sits on the shelves of the Department or in the Library of the House and ignored.

I believe that the issues in this report are far too important, particularly for the schools that are involved and for the pupils who attend our schools. I have no doubt that, given their professionalism, the district inspectors, associate inspectors and all engaged in the inspection process will, if given the opportunity, be able to respond to this report in a way that is positive and which will lead to improvement.

I give this very simple warning, however, let it not be said that this was just another day at the Northern Ireland Assembly. Let us all, collectively, work together to see the implementation of this report and the introduction of the Northern Ireland improvement service. Then, I believe, collectively with parents, teachers, schools, the Department and the inspectorate, we will continue to deliver and ensure the best possible outcomes for our pupils.

This week, I have two pupils from Ballycastle High School with me on work experience.

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

The Member must bring his remarks to a close.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

That school and its pupils want improvements to be made for their benefit.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Committee's report this afternoon. I want to put on record my thanks to the Committee staff for their steadfast and professional support throughout the process and to all those individuals, organisations and interested parties who participated in the witness sessions. I also thank the schools that hosted the Committee as it explored the merits of self-evaluation and the school improvement process.

Looking through the report, we can see the vast number of areas where the Committee has identified issues and recommended some very interesting points of action. Indeed, some of the highlights include increased support for struggling schools; alterations to the format of inspections, including the use of what some, including the Chairperson, have termed "plain English"; and looking at the role of parents in the overall process to give them a platform to become more active and informed. The Chair talked about the renaming of the inspection body to capture the culture of self-improvement in the education system as a whole. There is also the unique dynamic of Irish-medium education in a full immersion setting, which requires a specialised inspection process.

I want to focus on recommendation 16, which is to do with the statutory independence of the inspection body. The Sinn Féin members of the Committee have argued for some time that this recommendation does nothing but put the horse before the cart. How can we seriously stand here today and recommend that the inspectorate be independent but, in an effort to determine whether this status is desirable, we should afterwards carry out research? We think that that is crazy. No Minister would ever give serious consideration to such a predetermined recommendation. Indeed, I regret the fact that our report includes such a recommendation, as I feel that it downplays the significance of some of the others.

We have absolutely no theoretical or ideological opposition to an independent inspectorate; indeed, an independent inspectorate may be preferable moving forward. However, as I have outlined in the report, we suggest that evidence-based research should be undertaken prior to a decision either way on independence. It is important to stress that, during our inquiry, we received no evidence that supported an independent inspectorate. Moreover, the governance of the inspectorate was not included in the terms of reference for the inquiry. Occasionally, the question was put to witnesses regarding their perspectives on independence, where some offered thoughts on the way forward. Many stressed, however, that it was an issue that they had not considered in any great detail before offering some initial thoughts.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Yes.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Does the Member not accept that the submission made by the NIPSA representatives — we never got a satisfactory answer from the Department or the inspectorate as to the interference or the changes that were potentially made to reports — clearly indicated that something was going on to which someone has still not put their hands up?

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Member for his intervention. There is a line in the report that says that there was absolutely no evidence collected to support any accusations made. Indeed, in the very same week that it was suggested we should replicate the independence of Ofsted, the Education Minister at Westminster, Michael Gove, sacked Sally Morgan, the head of Ofsted, many believed, for no reason other than her political affiliation as a Labour peer. The question remains: how is that independent? Are those who seek an Ofsted model of governance content for the Minister to be able to sack at will the so-called independent head of an inspectorate?

There are at least a dozen fundamental questions that need to be addressed before settling on the preferred governance standing, including who will fund any such independent body; who will appoint members of such a body; and who will hold those members to account. Those are the sorts of questions that need to be answered long before we can seriously agree on the governance status of any future inspectorate body. It is surely more logical to research and evaluate a range of governance options as we move forward, and to defer any consideration in respect of statutory independence until such work has been completed.

For that reason, a Cheann Comhairle, I cannot support the motion, which calls upon the Minister to implement all of the recommendations that are contained in the report. Go raibh maith agat.

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. A number of factors influenced the Committee's decision to conduct the inquiry. They include the Department's attempt to enhance the ETI's powers, concerns that were expressed about the high stakes of the nature of inspections and the apparent lack of consistency in the measurement of value added. I will address the debate purely from a schools perspective. I suppose that, at the outset, I have to say that my experience of inspections, both as a teacher and as a school leader, was positive, but I have met many for whom it was a different story.

I believe that the Department and the Education and Training Inspectorate need to learn lessons from the report. Lesson one: it is not the inspectors who deliver school improvement, but the leaders and teachers in schools. Again, I pay credit to them for their dedication and hard work. An inspection can, however, assist the school improvement process if, first, the staff and governors have confidence in the process, have ownership of the findings and believe that they are valid. The district inspector plays a vital role in developing that trust. It is a very important but challenging role. I believe that there should be two reports: a short report for public consumption and a more detailed report which could feed into the school's development plan in order to drive further improvement. The majority of schools support the idea that there should be more practising principals and teachers on inspection teams. There should also be a more transparent complaints procedure.

Secondly, schools must have the resources available to effect improvement, bearing in mind that there are many factors that influence school and student performance, including the home learning environment and the quality of early years and previous education.

Thirdly, staff must be motivated to drive change. The ETI is very quick to say that it is not its responsibility to provide support. Instead, we have to depend on a depleted CASS service. Classroom teaching and leadership are key to school improvement, but we must bear in mind a recent ETI report which suggests that over half of lessons are not very good or better and that, across the sectors, management needs improvement in 22% of primary schools and 39% of post-primary schools. Quite bluntly, there is little high-quality staff development available, even if schools could afford it.

Take something like schools' self-evaluation — a must if we are ever going to develop school inspections into a quality assurance process. It is probably 20 years since I first organised a school's self-evaluating conference, but that process is still not well enough embedded in all of our schools because, I believe, the necessary expertise is not there to deliver it. There is a lot of expertise in our team of inspectors. However, apart from some good examples, they have not got the time to disseminate that good practice. There is some excellent work out there — special education comes to mind.

We need to see school support services and school inspection processes being more closely aligned. The language that is used in inspection reports is extremely important. We need to change language like "inadequate" or "unsatisfactory". Words like that do nothing to motivate people.

The second lesson is that inspections should be data-informed, not data-driven. I was very taken by a principal of a school where up to 80% of the pupils were on free school meals. Its inspection was going very well until it was compared with end of Key Stage assessments. That was devastating for staff. The ETI could walk away after the inspection, but it was the principal and the senior management team who had to pick up the pieces among a totally deflated staff. The ETI does not see the aftermath. Even when an inspection goes well, stress builds up, and heads see an increase in sickness absence after an inspection.

The ETI tells us that the data is only part of the picture, but it seems to drive everything else. In some cases, when the data is suspect, as is the case with end of key stage assessments, numerical targets simply inhibit improvement. We need a more holistic assessment of a school's performance. How can you use the same measure at the end of Key Stage 4 for students who were getting straight As at 11 and those from another post-primary school who were barely able to read?

Maybe there is just one lesson for us all here, —

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

The Member's time is up.

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

— and that is to listen to our teachers.

A professional, independent, broadly based, balanced inspection of schools is an essential component of school improvement.

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

The Member's time is up.

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

I finish by recording my thanks to the Committee staff and all those who took the time and effort to contribute.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

I very much welcome the opportunity to join Members here today as the Committee presents the results of its inquiry into the Education and Training Inspectorate. Since we launched the inquiry back in June last year, we have taken considerable evidence from over 60 varied and distinguished organisations and individuals. That evidence and assistance have been invaluable to the Committee in arriving at what, I believe, is a balanced and sensitive approach to the subject but one which recommends action rather than inertia.

At the very outset, I join other Members in stating my gratitude to the Committee Clerk and staff for the work they conducted throughout the inquiry; work that has been invaluable to Committee members.

During our evidence sessions, I am glad that we were able to clear up that the central reason for inspections in our schools is the pupil, not the bureaucratic process, the teachers, the buildings or the parents. Pupils must remain central.

The measure of any successful inspection should be the action that follows it. If areas for improvement are identified and there is no improvement, there is little point in an inspection taking place in the first place. Therefore, I believe that one of our key recommendations to provide additional support to help struggling schools to undergo a programme of improvement is entirely correct.

The process of communicating the results of inspections is also absolutely key. If parents are not able to fully understand the results of an inspection carried out at their child's school, that needs to be improved upon. Striking a balance is critical for staff and parents alike. It would be wrong to have an over-simplistic portrayal of the school's performance, nor would it be correct to publish an over-complex inspection report.

We must recognise that engagement with parents also has to improve. An answer to a question that I asked during the session in which we took evidence from the ETI officials sticks in my mind. I was told that the process of engaging in evening meetings with parents at a school due to be inspected had been discontinued some years back by the inspectorate because the turnout was so small. The reason given was this:

"it simply was not worth the resource."

The inference was that it was somehow the fault of the parents for not turning up to the evening meetings, rather than a failure on the part of the inspectorate to effectively communicate with parents.

Inspectors must begin the process of greater and more innovative connection with parents. That will strengthen the value of the inspection process overall. Inspections have to become more about the end product and the result rather than the process.

As I bring my remarks to a close, I once again praise the Committee staff for their hard work. I believe that they have come up with a radical report, which suggests reforms that, if implemented, will make a real difference to our schools and our pupils. Teachers and principals must no longer see inspections as threats but, rather, as opportunities for improvement in the education of our children. That will mean a change in mindset, which, I believe, will and must come sooner rather than later.

I urge the Assembly to support the report and the Minister to act on its recommendations for the sake of every single pupil in Northern Ireland.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I am glad to contribute to today's discussion. The report has taken a long time to produce. I do not think that we expected to spend six months on it, but it seemed to develop a life of its own. I do not want to be disrespectful, but we seemed to turn over the odd stone and then had to investigate a bit more what was under it. In no particular order, I thank the staff, in particular Peter McCallion, who is with us today, for managing to draw together a mass of evidence into a cohesive report that I encourage everybody to study, particularly the inspectorate.

Most people agreed that an effective school inspection system was a desirable thing. I thought that there would be some doubt about that, but that came through loud and clear. At least, in that respect, we are not going to follow the Finnish model, where they do not appear to have inspections at all.

The nature of inspections came in for some discussion and scrutiny. Should they be based on the present model of two or three days? Should they be announced two or three weeks in advance, or should they be unannounced? A body of opinion and the evidence that we got favoured unannounced inspections, and, frankly, I would, too. At least it has the effect of removing the enormous stress for the principal and staff of preparing for an inspection.

Another thing that came through — others have mentioned it — is the disparity between the experience of the inspectorate and how it views inspections and, dare I say it, the victims — that is, the staff and the principal in the schools — who definitely take a different view. As far as the inspectorate is concerned, the inspections are helpful, cooperative, supportive and non-confrontational. They are kind of an arm-around-the-shoulder, touchy-feely, helpful exercise that everybody will benefit from, and the staff and principals will be kept apprised of what is going on at all stages right through the inspection and receive a helpful report afterwards. I think the staff see it differently. They see them as stressful and critical, with no real recognition given, particularly no recognition of the value that schools have managed to add in the course of their year's work, perhaps in difficult circumstances.

We took evidence from one school principal who came to talk to us. I will not name the school because I do not think that it is named in the report, but it is a primary school in a difficult area of north Belfast. There are paramilitary influences, and there are a lot of problems with truancy, absenteeism and parental failure to encourage their children. Over a number of years, the school had managed to improve gradually the situation of the pupils. When the inspectors came and did their inspection, the principal's comment was that, if he had been given a satisfactory rating, he would have challenged it, because he thought that the school was better than that. He thought that the improvement that the school had generated deserved better than that. The school got an unsatisfactory result, which was absolutely devastating for the staff, for him and for the pupils. It just floored them. The appeals process does not seem to cater for that. Appeals are not successful. There is a recommendation in the report that we should have a more structured appeals procedure, and I agree absolutely with that. It should be an appeal to a body that has nothing to do with the ETI or the Department.

The independence of the inspectorate kept coming up. I support the recommendation that it should be independent of the Department. I wish that somebody would explain to me — perhaps the Minister will have a go at it — what the rationale is for the inspectorate being part of the Department, to put it around the other way. It cries out to me that it should be an independent body. As far as renaming it is concerned, at least it would put a different emphasis on the thing and perhaps draw a line under the past.

I am running out of time. On the Irish-medium sector and the immersion part of it, the fact that inspectors who cannot really speak Irish go into Irish-medium schools kind of defeats the object, does it not? That needs more resources and a proper recognition of what the Irish-medium sector is trying to do. It is an insult to the sector that the inspectorate cannot —

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

The Member's time is up.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

— provide an Irish speaker to inspect an Irish-medium school. I will have to stop there.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I start by declaring an interest as a member of two boards of governors, one of which has had major interaction with the inspectorate for the past couple of years. I am like a lot of Committee members — bar one, I think — in that I am one of the few people who, unfortunately, has had experience of the inspectorate. That experience has been good and bad. When I look at the school that the inspectorate came into, I see the positives and benefits of its coming in. There is definitely an atmosphere of staff being more focused on specific issues, which is one of the big benefits. The inspectorate clearly expanded the school's use of data and pupil tracking, and it greatly raised the focus on pupil profiles as a tool for seeing how a child's ability increases throughout his or her school life, which is of great benefit. The inspectorate has also led the school to review its entire curriculum. Once you understand how children are improving or not improving, you have an indication of what they are best suited to educationally.

All of that is very good stuff, and I cannot complain about the fact that, last year, the inspectorate saw that school as one of the most improved in the Province when it came to academic achievement. Those are all the good things that came out of the inspectorate going in and changing what was happening in schools. Aligned with that, however, are the downsides, the things that I do not believe the inspectorate gets right. First, it comes in and takes a snapshot of what is going on. It does not sit down with the key players in the school and allow them to explain what progress has been made and how the school is attempting to do some of what it will eventually implement anyway. I can give a simple example. The inspectorate criticised the school for not having a head of maths. In fact, the inspection interfered with and stopped the process of interviewing for that very post. Then, they had the cheek to criticise the school for having no one there. They do not really interact with the staff and senior management of the school on what plans are in place to improve on some of the issues that it ends up criticising it for.

The use of anonymous surveys is highlighted in the report, and I fully support the point made. My experience is that anonymous staff surveys, in particular, give a platform to those who have not achieved or advanced in the school and feel aggrieved. All you get from those individuals is negativity, which you would expect because nobody likes not being the winner in an interview. I like the fact that the report clearly identifies that as a major issue in how the inspectorate should operate.

The language used in the reports is highlighted at, I think, section 7 of the recommendations. I do not think that any member of the Committee had an issue with the main body of inspection reports. The problem is that no one ever reads that. The press definitely do not read it; they look at the end of the report and at the language used in the conclusion. That is what does critical damage to the reputation of any school. I welcome the fact that our recommendations say that more moderate language should be used throughout all reports.

Running centrally through all of this is the fact that everybody agreed that there should be independence for the inspectorate. I find it hard to believe that the Minister would fight against independence for the inspectorate while his party —

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

The Member's time is up.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

— fought for the independent oversight of the police. That is hypocritical.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.30 pm.

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I advise Members that question 7 has been withdrawn.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

1. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, following the removal of milk quotas, what action her Department will take to address the volatility of milk prices. (AQO 6368/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The dairy sector makes a very important contribution to the local agrifood industry. To ensure its future sustainability, it is vital that the sector remain competitive and profitable.

When milk quotas end, there will be no constraints on production, and future decisions will be taken by the dairy sector in the context of input costs and market returns. Some turbulence in the market may be expected as other countries ramp up production, and this, in turn, could affect milk prices here. However, I am encouraged by the first report of the economic board of the new EU Milk Market Observatory and the EU’s optimism about market prospects and milk prices going forward.

My Department’s overall aim is to help the dairy sector to improve its performance and grow its potential in the marketplace in a sustainable way. For example, we provided joint support with Invest NI for an industry-led dairy competitiveness study aimed at helping the sector to plan for the future, post milk quotas. The recommendations of that study are now being taken forward by the dairy industry.

The dairy sector has the potential to grow further and to exploit the opportunities arising from the predicted expansion in world population. My Department will continue to support the dairy sector’s growth ambitions, as set out in the Agri-Food Strategy Board’s report, 'Going for Growth', through the provision of education, training, technical support and research to help to improve efficiency, competitiveness and innovation. In addition, it is envisaged that the sector will be able to avail of support under the new rural development programme.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Following the much discussion that there has been in the press about illegal movement of milk and milk actually flowing from farmers in the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland, can the Minister enlighten us on what discussions have taken place between her and the Agriculture Minister in the Republic to stop this illegal trading of milk?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Obviously I condemn illegal trading of milk or any illegal activity. This is something that we have discussed at North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) meetings, albeit not any of the specifics. I assume that the Member is referring to the article in 'The Sunday Times' at the weekend, which indicated that the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) in the South is investigating potential paramilitary links to that activity. I am aware of that report. It is vital that all agencies work together and that we are able to cooperate with each other no matter what your role is. I can assure the Member that my Department, through its enforcement team and my staff, will play its role in making sure that we protect the reputation of our milk industry, which is key to moving forward, and expose and bring to court anyone involved in any illegal activity.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagraí. Will the Minister please elaborate on the support that her Department has given to the dairy sector?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, absolutely. My Department has provided support in many ways, particularly, a number of years ago, through the industry-led dairy competitiveness study, which is helping the dairy industry to prepare for the ending of milk quotas in 2015. Dairy UK is leading on the implementation of that study's recommendations. The work of the Agri-Food Strategy Board has set very challenging targets for the local agrifood industry up until 2020.

The local dairy industry receives, and will continue to receive, significant assistance from Government through the work that we do around research, training, knowledge transfer, benchmarking and product innovation alongside financial assistance through the regional food programme and the rural development programme. My aim is to ensure that the dairy sector can meet the challenges ahead and continue to make a very important contribution to the local economy and to life in rural areas.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Minister, following on from Mr Dunne's supplementary question about the discussions that you have had, could you outline to the House any discussions that you have had with Minister Coveney regarding the dairy milk industry in Ireland and the abolition of milk quotas?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I apologise; I did not quite hear the question. If you want me to elaborate on the conversations —

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

It is regarding the Irish Government's position and the milk quotas in the South.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

There will be natural challenges post quotas. We are at an advantage in that, in the past, we have never reached full quota; we have always worked at about 10% below quota. Quotas have not restricted any production here, so that is a plus in a sense.

However, in the future, there are obvious challenges across Europe. Indeed, with the growing world population, there are obviously opportunities that we need to exploit in moving forward. We need not look on quotas as a negative. While there are challenges, I think that our challenge is to make sure that we exploit other markets that may be open to our local industry and that we work across the island, because we can market what we have to offer right across the new markets that we will try to get in to. There are obvious advantages in that, and that is something that I have been discussing with Simon Coveney.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

Minister, you have said today that the Department is going to help, and you have given us a lot of generalities but no specifics. Can you please be more specific as to how we are going to increase our market share and help milk farmers and so on?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It goes without saying that the work that we have done with the Agri-Food Strategy Board has looked at the challenges and opportunities for the dairy sector, and I want to be able to play my role. I think that some of the key roles for the Executive to play are particularly around exploring new markets and going into countries where we may not have been before, as well as looking at what markets are open that we can be competitive in post-quota. There are many opportunities, and I want to play my role through DARD support for the dairy industry, whether that be through the regional food programme, the rural development programme or the practical supports around innovation and research and development.

There are many levels of support that can come from my Department and others to help the industry to be sustainable in the future. The industry has been very aware of the ending of quotas for quite some time and has been preparing. The piece of work that the industry did alongside my Department and DETI, through Invest NI, has been key in helping plan for the future. As I said, there are many levels of support that we have been involved with, and I am happy to provide any further detail that the Member wants in writing.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

2. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline the efforts she has made to obtain agreement on the future allocation of single farm payments. (AQO 6369/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The process of reforming single farm payments has been ongoing for some time at European and local levels. My officials and I have sought to keep stakeholders in the North fully engaged in this process.

In October 2013, I launched an extensive public consultation on the reform of pillar 1 direct payments, which provided considerable analysis and outlined a suggested package of support to help focus the debate and crystallise views. I have personally met a broad range of organisations representing all sections of the farming community. My officials have attended a large number of stakeholder meetings that were attended by well over 3,000 people. It has been hugely valuable to me to hear from all sides in the debate as I work towards delivering a fair and balanced outcome. Everyone has had the opportunity to express their views and preferences in a very open and transparent manner.

The formal consultation drew a huge reaction, with over 850 responses received. I have already announced a substantial number of CAP reform decisions on which there was significant agreement and which have been broadly welcomed. However, a number of key decisions remain to be taken. The allocation of almost €2 billion of taxpayers’ money over the remainder of this decade has to be done carefully, wisely and fairly. Given the importance of the remaining decisions, I will take them to the Executive. Political discussions are ongoing, and it is my intention to bring my proposals on these issues to the Executive in coming weeks.

I am, of course, mindful of the 1 August 2014 deadline to notify the European Commission of our implementation plans, and it is my intention that we will be in a position to have an agreed CAP pillar 1 structure before that date.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Minister cannot be ignorant of the dire consequences for the farming community if we move immediately to a one-region, flat-rate distribution; her own departmental figures demonstrate that beyond doubt. Apart from the platitudes about seeking agreement, what actual steps has she taken to seek consensus on this matter? When, for example, did she last meet the key stakeholder on the producer side, the Ulster Farmers' Union? She talks about bringing a paper to the Executive: has she yet tabled that paper?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I think that that is two questions so far.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Is she just running down the clock to get her objective of a single region —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order. This is Question Time, when Members have the opportunity to place a question to the Minister.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We have taken quite a number of decisions to date. However, there are some key decisions still to be taken, and I am actively pursuing our getting to a stage where we have an Executive paper that we can agree on. I do not think that it is ideal that we go to a position where there is a flat rate immediately. As part of the whole consultation exercise, I have listened carefully to the views of everybody concerned, and I am only interested in a fair outcome and a balanced approach to CAP reform. We are talking about serious amounts of taxpayers' money, and they should be distributed fairly.

In terms of taking a decision, a political process is ongoing. I am involved in that process and I hope to be in a position in the next number of weeks to be able to bring a paper to the Executive for agreement.

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

I thank the Minister for her answer. Can she state, at this stage, if she has been involved in discussions with party leaders and some Executive colleagues to try to reach a consensus paper that could be presented to the Executive to end the uncertainty, given that Scotland has now reached agreement?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have not been involved in discussions with party leaders. There is a political process ongoing. I am going to keep repeating that. There is nothing else to add to it. I hope to be able to bring the paper to the Executive for full discussion and, hopefully, agreement, in the next number of weeks.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answers so far. I will be a bit more focused than my colleague from North Antrim. Given the fact that a flat rate immediately would be a shock/ trauma to the industry, what can the Minister do today to reassure the farming industry that that will not be the case?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I think that my track record speaks for itself. Over all the consultation processes, I have listened very carefully to all stakeholders. Nobody has said that they did not have the ear of the Minister, because I made sure that my officials engaged at town hall meetings and at community centres. No matter where they were asked to go, they went. We have clearly listened to the views. Unprecedented numbers of people responded to the consultation, and we have taken our time and made sure that we analysed that properly.

I see the sector as being one of the most fantastic sectors. Look at the economic recession that we have been going through and the economic climate that we are in. This is the industry that has continued to shine. Nobody sitting on the Benches on this side is trying to disadvantage anybody in the industry.

Looking to the future, what we need is a fair and balanced CAP. We are talking about serious amounts of money, and it is only right and proper that it should be distributed fairly and that we have a sustainable industry into the future. I assure anybody from the farming community that all my decisions will be fair and balanced.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

Frankly, I think this is a disgrace. There are three weeks left in the Assembly term before the summer and there is still no deal, and the 1 August deadline is looming. The Minister said that she will bring it to the Executive. I hope that she does, but —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Can we have a question, please?

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

— if she does not, will she accept that the clouds are gathering and she will have lost the confidence of the sector? If she does not bring it to the Executive —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Can we have a question, please?

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

— will she do the honourable thing and stand down?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I can say it no differently. I am in a political process. I aim to have a decision and to bring something forward to the Executive in the next number of weeks. I can dress it up or change my language if the Member wishes, but that is the situation. I will take my decisions in a fair and balanced manner. I will not be rushed into decisions. We are talking about £2 billion of money. I am not going to be rushed into a decision just to please people. [Interruption.] I accept that anybody in the farming community — [Interruption.]

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Because of how it affects farmers, I have listened very carefully, and nobody can be in any doubt of that. The track record speaks for itself. I will take my decision to the Executive, hopefully in the next number of weeks. I do not think that it is in anybody's benefit if Europe takes the decision for us, because we are elected here by local people to take decisions, so that is my intention. If that is not the case, it will not be because I have been found wanting.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Stephen Agnew is not in his place.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

4. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development on what date the fisheries task force will have its first meeting. (AQO 6371/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

You will be aware that at the end of February I announced that I was planning to appoint a fisheries industry task force to undertake a fundamental examination of the challenges and opportunities facing the industry and to identify options for reform to help to ensure the future sustainability of the local fishing sector. At the same time I announced the provision of further financial assistance to the sector. Since that announcement, my Department’s priority was to develop and deliver the assistance scheme whilst seeking to establish the task force. The inaugural meeting of the fishing task force will take place on Friday 4 July.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

Will the Minister detail what will be on the agenda, whether it will include options for a fishing vessel decommissioning scheme and if it is possible that fishing representatives will have the opportunity to pursue other agenda items through the task force?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

At the first meeting, I want the task force to consider all the options and issues that it may want to scope further and, absolutely, a decommissioning scheme will still be on the table for discussion. The Member will be aware that we tried to progress it in the past but that there was no agreement. I am still keen that we can explore that issue further and I think there will be opportunities under the new funding round for that to happen. That will be on the table alongside all the current issues that are impacting the fishing industry at the moment, of which there are many, particularly around profitability for the industry.

What I want members of the task force to do at the inaugural meeting is to sit down and look at whether they are content with the membership, because we want to make sure that grass-roots fishermen also feel that they are part of the discussions. Everything is up for discussion, and, through the task force, the industry can work with the Department to decide what it wants to prioritise in the time ahead.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister tell us what priorities the fishing industry task force should consider?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I said, the priorities will include things such as profitability for the sector, particularly for certain fleet segments, and the actions that will be required to address that. The decommissioning scheme will obviously be on the table, as will the challenges with wind farms and the conflict there. I think that there will be quite a range of things. Most important to consider in moving forward will be the new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund funding stream, how that can be got on the ground as quickly as possible and the types of schemes that fishermen want to see.

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

Minister, this time last year you announced funding through the European Fisheries Fund to include the establishment of a research and development fund to look specifically at fishing gear with very low catch rates for unwanted fish. Do you have any update on that, please?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I can provide more detail to the Member in writing, but suffice it to say that a lot of the gear trials have been going forward. If you remember, the history is that Europe wanted to impose a particular type of gear on the industry. I opposed that and brought a proposal to the Commission. We have now trialled quite a number of types of gear through the research project that we took forward. Some fishermen favour certain types of gear over others, and there are obviously competing issues. It is an ongoing piece of work.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Minister agree with me that the time for talking has long since passed and that, unless and until something drastic is done to improve the lot of fishermen, we will have no fishing industry left? Is she listening closely to what the fishermen are telling her Department? In an answer to another Member earlier, she said that we are local representatives who answer to the people. Can you stand over that statement for the fishing industry?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Absolutely. That is what we are elected to do. The reason why I am establishing the task force is that, sometimes, fishermen do not always think that their views are being represented, even through groupings or in their communication with the Department. Through this piece of work, my intention is that we will be able to improve communication across the board and look at what we in the Department can do to assist fishermen — all fishermen.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

5. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development when she last met the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Minister of Finance and Personnel in relation to securing financial support for the agrifood Going for Growth strategy. (AQO 6372/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

My Department has played a key role alongside DETI in supporting the Agri-Food Strategy Board, both during the development of Going for Growth and as we move into the implementation phase. That involved ongoing engagement with DFP in preparing the proposed government response to the report.

The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and I have jointly submitted proposals to the Executive on the way forward for Going for Growth, and I am committed to delivering on its aims and objectives. For example, the report identified significant opportunities for export growth in the USA, Africa, the Middle East and the Far East. I have already visited China to talk to officials about the quality and safety of our produce, and my Department is supporting access to new markets through the efforts of the supply chain development programme and the veterinary service. Most recently, Singapore announced it was opening its markets to beef from the North and to Northern beef sourced from Southern cattle, and I am confident that others will follow.

Irrespective of the proposed market, any growth must be sustainable, and I welcome the Agri-Food Strategy Board's view that any growth must be based on sustainability and profitability for the entire supply chain, recognising the importance that each part plays in producing high-quality, traceable food. My officials continue to liaise with their counterparts in other Departments, including DETI and DFP, to progress agreed recommendations, and have submitted bids to DFP to support preparatory work for a farm business improvement scheme.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

It has been 13 months since the strategy was first announced, and we have seen very little in that time. In fact, the delivery has been pretty pathetic. I do not mind where the blame lies and whether it is with DARD, DETI or DFP, but, in the eyes of most farmers, you are all letting the sector down.

Can the Minister give a commitment that Going for Growth has not been caught up in some futile game of political brinkmanship between the DUP and her party over the issue of welfare reform?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I can give a guarantee that I am as committed as I ever was to the Agri-Food Strategy Board's report. As I said, I have sent the Executive my response to it.

I do not think that it is fair to say that there has been no progress to date, as there has been progress. Quite a number of areas of work have taken place across Departments, including mine, to progress the asks of the document.

I will run through a very short list of some of the things happening in my Department in relation to the deferral of the export health charges identified as an obstacle to export. I proactively promoted agrifood in China, and OFMDFM promoted it in Japan. We have had the opening of the Singapore market to beef and continued work on developing the new rural development programme, which, as the Member will be aware, I have always said is key to delivering some key asks of the Going for Growth strategy, particularly the farm business improvement scheme. The number of DARD postgraduate courses has increased, which was an ask, and we have created a dedicated contact point at the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) for EU funding for research and development. We also reopened the manure efficiency technology scheme.

So it is incorrect to say that nothing has been done to date. Quite a lot of work is ongoing, and that is just in my Department. However, I want the report to be finalised at the Executive sooner rather than later.

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

I thank the Minister for her answers thus far. Given that £250 million was originally envisaged for this scheme, can the Minister outline exactly what Executive funds have been targeted and agreed, and is there a suitable timetable for a Going for Growth implementation plan?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I said, my response to the document and that of the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment are with the Executive, and we are waiting for a discussion on those any day. The key ask in that document is the £250 million for the business improvement scheme, which is key for the sector. We can look at land management schemes and at fencing and sheds for farmers, which are key needs in the industry. I am very keen to get those signed off so that we can implement the bigger projects sooner rather than later.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire go dtí seo. What impact will the 0% transfer have on the delivery of Going for Growth?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member will be aware that one of the key tools in enabling us to deliver on the Going for Growth strategy is the new rural development programme, so it is absolutely vital that we get sufficient funds. I have said clearly that, as a result of not being able to transfer money, the Executive have to step up to the mark to deliver on the additional financial support needed. As I said, I remain committed to delivering on the aims set out in the strategy and am exploring all options available in order to be able to achieve that.

More than ever before, it is vital that the Executive provide the funding and support to enable the Department to deliver on the objectives set out in the 'Going for Growth' document because all parties, particularly the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and me, signed up to it. It is a fantastic piece of work, and it would be a shame if it sat on a shelf and was not taken forward because of a lack of investment from the Executive.

Michael Copeland (UUP, Belfast East)

6. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for an update on her engagement with departmental staff in Dundonald House in relation to the proposed relocation of her Department's headquarters to Ballykelly. (AQO 6373/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As you will be aware, I remain committed to relocating my departmental headquarters to the former military site at Ballykelly. Since I announced my intention, my officials and I have kept staff fully up to date with developments. Very recently, my permanent secretary wrote to all staff in the Department to inform them that a paper on the business case for relocation is with my Executive colleagues for consideration, and he has committed to providing further regular updates as required.

The consultation with staff and their representatives continues through our agreed industrial relations mechanisms, known as the Whitley arrangements. A subcommittee of departmental and staff representatives meets monthly, specifically to consult NIPSA formally on all relocation issues. More recently, a further subcommittee was established to consider all of the HR issues. Furthermore, my officials have developed a dedicated intranet site, and staff have been provided with an email helpline for any questions that they may have.

As we move forward, my intention is that all staff in DARD will continue to be kept informed of progress and, as appropriate, fully consulted and engaged with throughout the programme. I previously stated my intention to continue with the commitment of the previous Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to engage fully throughout the process with staff and their representatives. To date, the engagement with NIPSA has been extensive and meaningful, and I intend to ensure that that continues.

Michael Copeland (UUP, Belfast East)

As always, I thank the Minister for her answer. Can she give us some idea of her estimate of the number of staff working in Dundonald House who, for whatever reason, may be unable or unprepared to move to the north-west? What realistic chance is there of all these staff being offered an alternative position in the greater Belfast area?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I do not have the exact figures with me, but the Member will be aware that we did the initial staff survey in phases. First, we surveyed the DARD HQ staff, then the wider DARD staff and, finally, the wider Civil Service staff. I think that it was only natural, given that DARD HQ has been based at Dundonald House for almost 50 years, that the outcome of the DARD HQ survey was that the majority of staff who work there live in the surrounding area and, obviously, want to stay there. That is totally acceptable, and, of course, that is what they want.

We moved on to the next phase, which looked at the wider DARD staff, and that obviously created a bigger pool of people who want to work in the north-west and Ballykelly. Again, that was the case when we came to the staff surveys for the wider Civil Service. I am confident that there will be opportunities for transfer across the Civil Service and that there will be enough staff to staff a new headquarters in Ballykelly.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Given the recent contrary speculation, will the Minister give the definitive timeline for the relocation of her departmental headquarters to Ballykelly?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The business case has been agreed. As you know, we set it out on a phased basis, and we are hopeful that we will have staff in place in 2017.

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

The last time that I was in Ballykelly, it was for gross insubordination at a checkpoint, but that, in no way, has deterred my endeavours to go back there. Will the Minister outline the progression that will lead to this swanky new headquarters and all the 800 jobs that she has promised? I do not want to be a doubting Thomas, but the Minister really needs to put flesh on the bones and assure us that this is for real.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I can absolutely assure you that it is for real and that my commitment for decentralisation is for real. I know that the Member has a particular interest in Ballykelly, but he can see that we are also moving very quickly to move fisheries to south Down, Forest Service to Fermanagh and Rivers Agency to Cookstown. That speaks for itself, in that I have a commitment to make sure that we decentralise, and I am absolutely committed to the headquarters move. We have a project management board in place. I am not going to lead staff up the garden path. We are making sure that they are fully consulted throughout the process, and they welcome that. This is about a fair distribution of public sector jobs, fair and balanced growth and us being able to stimulate the economy in the north-west with the construction and the ongoing maintenance of the building. The benefits far outweigh any negatives, and I am absolutely committed to the project.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. It is not that often that a city slicker gets the chance to ask the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development a question. The Minister has mentioned the benefits of relocation a number of times in her answers: will she take a minute to outline those benefits?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes. Thanks for that question. This, for me, is absolutely about a fair distribution of public sector jobs. It is something that the Executive are wedded to, and it is a Programme for Government commitment. I want to see this through. As I said, all the other opportunities that will now be available for people across the wider Civil Service to move into DARD in the north-west and to find employment that is closer to home and creates a far better work/life balance are very welcome.

As I said, the benefits of the stimulation of the local economy through job creation and the construction and ongoing maintenance of the building speak for themselves. We want to see this happen. As I said, I have a programme board in place that is very committed to taking forward the project, and I will continue to work with it over the next number of years until we see this come to fruition.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

8. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for an update on the proposed DARD Direct office in Strabane. (AQO 6375/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Work on a new purpose-built government building on the site of the current social security office at Urney Road, Strabane, is due to begin in autumn 2014, subject to planning permission and the central procurement division’s tender process. It will be the venue for the Strabane DARD Direct office and a modern jobs and benefits office. I expect the full range of DARD services to farmers in the surrounding area to be available from this office by spring 2016. When delivered, the Strabane DARD Direct office will complete the full roll-out of 12 DARD Direct offices across the north.

Feedback from farmers about DARD Direct has always been very positive, and I believe that co-locating with DSD and DEL is a very cost-effective way for DARD to ensure that our customers in the north-west enjoy the same benefits as others.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for her response. How many jobs are expected to be relocated to Strabane? Go raibh maith agat.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Member for her question. Approximately 39 posts will be relocated to the new DARD Direct office. The majority — about 25 jobs — will be from Asylum Road, and the remainder, approximately eight people, will be relocated from Limavady. There will be about six people from our existing office in Strabane.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

That is the end of the period for listed questions. We move on to topical questions.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

1. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to expand on her reasoning behind her decision not to proceed with buying Lough Neagh. (AQT 1281/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have not taken a decision not to buy Lough Neagh. The Member will be aware that we published the report and we now have the Executive response agreed, which basically states that there is a lot more homework to be done. There is a lot more scoping to be done. We must get the management structure right and have that partnership arrangement working, with one Department taking the lead. The Member will be aware of the challenges due to having so many vested interests, if you like, and so many different interests.

The report sets out clearly and the Executive agreed that the first thing that we need to have in place is the new management structure. We are consulting on that with the new council structures. Hopefully, that work will be finished within four to six months. Ownership is definitely not ruled out. It is still on the table and can be explored further, perhaps better, with the structure that will be put in place, as opposed to Departments. They will have a better opportunity to look at scoping the potential rather than just the challenges, which sometimes seems to be the nature of government.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I welcome the Minister's answer and the fact that she is looking at a partnership approach for management. Will she confirm which Department will lead? The council side is the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment, and we need a joint approach to make sure of this work. Will she ensure that that happens?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I totally agree that we need a joint approach, but one Department has to take the lead. I am content that it is this one.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

2. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline what role her Department will play in any future consideration of any decision for a planning application for fracking or hydraulic fracturing. (AQT 1282/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have previously stated that I will not allow fracking to happen on DARD land, on Forest Service land, and that remains the case. Obviously, any decisions taken in regard to hydraulic fracking will have to go to the Executive, given their cross-cutting nature.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagra. I thank the Minister for her answer. What will she do if a decision on planning permission for fracking is brought before the Executive?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have made clear my views on fracking: I am still absolutely convinced that, were we to allow fracking on our land, we would damage the clean, green image that we have across the island of Ireland, which serves us well. Any approach taken when it comes to the Executive would be based on that premise.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

3. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline the discussions she has had about the current beef crisis. (AQT 1283/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have met many groups, particularly NIMEA, to make sure that they were aware of my views. Over the last number of days, I have met the Livestock Auctioneers Association. I have also met numerous farmers and elected representatives to discuss their concerns for the beef sector. We are all quite united about the sector, the challenges that are there for it and whom we need to challenge. Over the next weeks, I intend to meet the Livestock Marketing Commission (LMC), retailers and processors to make my views known, particularly on something that, I feel, was very poorly done — the changes that they brought forward without any communication with farmers. That will not lead to a sustainable industry in the future. Taking decisions without consulting farmers is not a fair way to do business. The agrifood strategy report points clearly to the fact that there needs to be transparent processes and engagement throughout the supply chain, otherwise things will not work as we want.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

On the engagements that we hope to have with NIMEA and others, what messages should retailers and processors get to ensure that farmers receive fair payment for their produce?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The challenges that farmers face over the price that they get for their produce have been well highlighted and documented over the last while. The one strategic issue that needs to be tackled is that, despite high prices last year, the beef sector still faced a lack of profitability. That is a key challenge for us all. It is a key challenge for all of us in government, particularly around the need to exploit new markets and find new avenues for our produce. The key message for retailers has to be that, unless there is transparency and fairness in the whole supply chain, we will not have a sustainable industry into the future. That is the key message that I will make sure that I put strongly when I engage with them over the next weeks.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Stewart Dickson is not in his place. I call Anna Lo.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

5. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what discussions she has had with her Executive colleagues about match funding for the next rural development programme. (AQT 1285/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We are working our way through that process. I hope to bring an Executive paper in the next few weeks that will address the issues. The Member will be aware that in the next rural development programme I want to see fairness and balance. I also want to see farmers, the environment and the rural communities supported. I can give her an assurance that, no matter what my budget is, that will be the approach that I take.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I very much welcome the Minister's assurance that there will be funding for this. How much funding are we talking about? Do you have enough for the programme?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Not at this moment in time. We know our European allocation, but we are working our way through what DARD's contribution will be and then what we get from the Executive through the Going for Growth strategy, which will help to shore up the rural development programme. I hope to have some positive news on that in the time ahead, because, as I said, I want to see a fair and balanced programme. In order to do that, we need the money to bring it forward.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

7. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for a progress update on the decentralisation of Forest Service to Enniskillen. (AQT 1287/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We are still on target. The work is ongoing, and we hope, forgive me if I am wrong, that Forest Service headquarters will be in place in Fermanagh in 2015.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for that update, although it seems a long time since it was first announced. The delay seems to be quite significant. The number of personnel transferring to Enniskillen will be reduced from the original figure. Will the entire headquarters of Forest Service move or only part of it?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is the majority of headquarters staff. I think the number is around 58, but I will confirm that with the Member.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

8. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for an update on the areas that were devastated by the various tree diseases, particularly the vast areas of East Antrim that were affected. (AQT 1288/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Just that work is ongoing. We are going into a period of surveillance, which over the next number of months will be key, and we will have Forest Service staff out on the ground. We have no new confirmed cases, I think, since I last answered a question from the Member. Surveillance work is ongoing. We are still trying to prevent the spread of the disease and to get our message out as strongly as possible.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that, but at this stage is there any consideration of a timeline for replacement and planting?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

No. The priority has to be around surveillance work at this moment in time. We are keen to meet our planting targets. We have not always achieved what we wanted in terms of planting, so I am keen that we have some scheme on the ground that allows people to move forward with planting as quickly as possible. However, the priority has to be around surveillance and containing the disease where we can.

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

9. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, who is no doubt aware that the rural development programme is vital to many rural communities, what reassurance she can give about that programme, given that there has been zero transfer of money from pillar 1 to pillar 2 as a result of a certain court case. (AQT 1289/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is unfortunate, to say the least, that the court case happened. It robbed rural development and rural communities of adequate funding that would have been used beneficially for the farming community and the wider rural community for fantastic projects that, I am sure, the Member is aware of, but some great projects have been taken forward through the rural development programme.

There is a misconception that people like to peddle that money was being taken off farmers to be distributed elsewhere. That was not the case, because in the past all modulated moneys always went to farmers. Farmers are of the rural community, so they deserve services in rural communities also. Does it create a challenge? Absolutely it creates a challenge for the new programme, but I have said clearly that the Executive need to step up to the plate and give the funding that we would have otherwise been able to transfer, which will allow us to have a well-funded programme going forward that is balanced and fair in its approach.

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

I thank the Minister for that extensive answer. Extending the question, has the Minister been able to have any discussions with the Minister of Finance with a view to getting Executive funds to begin supporting the limited pillar 2 money that is there for rural development?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The allocation for Going for Growth is an Executive decision, so I have approached the Executive with a paper. The Finance and Personnel Minister is also involved in that process. That is where we sit. We hope that we will get some movement on that in the time ahead, because I want to hit the ground running with our new rural development programme. We do not want to be left behind because we are waiting for a funding decision. I am keen that we get a decision on that, and, as I said, the Finance and Personnel Minister is part of the Executive process.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Questions 7 and 14 have been withdrawn.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

1. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what assurances she can give that future training programmes, including suicide awareness, will be awarded through open competition to ensure equality of opportunity for providers. (AQO 6383/11-15)

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question, and I can confirm that, in line with procurement rules and best practice in delivering value for money, all potential providers with the necessary skills and experience will have the opportunity to offer their services in managing or running training programmes. That does not apply to the Department's own training needs, which are normally serviced through the Centre for Applied Learning, which is part of DFP.

In the specific case of suicide awareness, an assessment of the results of a pilot study will take place in due course, and I am therefore unable to give a full report at this point on whether and when a training programme will emerge.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Can she give us a clear assurance that further suicide awareness training programmes will be awarded through competition and not given to your next-door neighbour — next door to your constituency office virtually — as was the case in September 2013 when the Public Initiative for the Prevention of Suicide and Self-Harm (PIPS) was awarded £30,000?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

It is a pity that the Member has chosen to be particularly petty over suicide prevention training programmes. To be factually correct, my next-door neighbour is not involved in suicide prevention awareness; she is Mrs Kane.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

It is on the same block.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Níamh Louise Foundation, which is a rural suicide prevention awareness programme, and PIPS were cited because they are working with grass-roots groups on the ground. It is a pilot programme. I have seen some of the work on the ground and heard anecdotally across the country, not just in north Belfast, that this should be a success, and I hope that that will be reflected in our report. Based on that report, and hopefully on the success that it will highlight, future programmes, which I hope to bring forward with the supportive of Executive colleagues, will certainly be put out to tender.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

With equality, hopefully.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister and her Department's intervention on a lot of key projects and their impact. Will the Minister and her Department fund further suicide prevention initiatives, specifically in sport?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for her question. It is important that all Executive members do their best to support the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in tackling suicide and preventing it. It is everyone's business, and sport, but not exclusively sport, has proven to be one of the best examples of people working with grass-roots groups on the ground to access much-needed services. If funding is committed to the suicide prevention programme in conjunction with Sport NI and others involved in sport, post-project evaluation will be carried out, and, as a result of that, we will certainly bring forward further bids and further examples of where we need a joined-up approach. As I tried to say in response to the primary question, anecdotal evidence is that groups were doing that type of work anyway. It gives value and status to the work that they are doing collectively to try to tackle the scourge of suicide in our communities.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Suicide is the most sensitive and emotive subject matter that any community and family can face. Is the Minister mindful of the fact that a lot of excellent and shining work is done by the community and voluntary sector across Northern Ireland in helping to prevent suicide and in educating families? Is she minded to include them in any process and any tendering exercises?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I totally agree with everything that the Member said. Indeed, he will be aware through his Foyle constituency that many of the groups work together and do very good work under very strenuous circumstances. Most of the organisations are made up of members who have been bereaved through suicide or of family members who are working with relatives who are experiencing poor mental health.

So it is imperative that those people are always taken into account in anything that we do. I hope and anticipate that the results of the pilot survey will tell us what we already know: that we need to do more of this work with groups on the ground, have a better joined-up approach across government and, most of all, make sure that the people who are furthest away from good access to services are brought right into the middle.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

My question follows from your answer to Mr Ramsey and is also on suicide awareness. The Minister will be aware of the local, often voluntary organisations that play such a pivotal role. I know the case of MindWise in Banbridge and the work that it does for the community. What support will the Minister give to small organisations? What steps will she take to ensure that they will not be disadvantaged in any way in competing for future funding programmes?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I support what the Member said about the work of MindWise, particularly, as the Member will be aware, its work in libraries and in rural communities. That work was undertaken through one project based in an urban area and another in a rural area. The main functions of suicide prevention lie with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. As I have said before and will repeat, it is everyone's business to try to do something to tackle the issue and provide opportunities that help to improve mental health and prevent suicide. I am conscious of the volunteering efforts of the families, in particular, who are involved in those programmes, and of the fact that the problem does not recognise where people live, their postcode, class, gender or politics. We must all do something to help to prevent suicide in our families and communities.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

2. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure whether she has any plans to increase the annual funding allocated to the Arts Council's musical instruments for bands funding stream, in order to enable more bands to avail themselves of this finance. (AQO 6384/11-15)

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. Through the Arts Council, my Department has been able to maintain the level of funding for the musical instruments for bands scheme at £200,000 for the last 4 years. I believe that this is a welcome achievement, in light of current economic difficulties, and supports the North’s long-standing tradition of music-making and the significant interest in bands here across both main cultural traditions. Should an opportunity for additional capital become available, I would fully support a case to continue and develop this high-impact programme. Increased funding would not only extend its reach but enable the purchase of instruments for brass, accordion and traditional bands. Music-making enhances the social and cultural life of all traditions, and, as Minister, I support all aspects of music and a wide variety of musical styles including classical, contemporary, concert music, opera, jazz and pop.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for her response. I think the Minister is aware that the maximum that can be drawn down is £5,000 per band. That can go some way to assist, for example, flute bands. However, for pipe bands, silver bands and accordion bands, that provision is restrictive. Will the Minister look at the upper limit for each application?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The money is awarded to the Arts Council, and it decides what award is made. However, I will take the Member's concerns back to the Arts Council because I have also had representations from groups involved in Irish traditional music. When, for example, they are buying fiddles or uilleann pipes, the cost can be tens of thousands of pounds. Certainly, I am happy to pass on the Member's concerns to the Arts Council, but I can give no guarantee at this stage that the limit will increase.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her extensive answer. Will she confirm whether her Department supports bands in any other way?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The City of Culture included a significant involvement of marching bands, with a number of the events featuring local bands. They added to the Twelfth of July celebrations as part of a cultural programme with partners and stakeholders in the city. Marching bands participated in the Walled City Tattoo, the 400th anniversary of the wall celebration, and the Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann, amongst other projects. It is my intention to build on the success of 2013, particularly in the city and surrounding areas, and I have made a bid to the Executive in the June monitoring round for additional funding to meet that commitment.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answers. The Arts Council is often criticised for most of its funding streams being Belfast-centric. Are there any criteria that she can ask the Arts Council to include to ensure that rural bands are also able to avail themselves of that funding?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Arts Council is criticised for many things, most times unfairly, in my opinion. The application process is open to everyone, regardless of where they live. It is not the Arts Council's fault that demand seems to come from cities more than rural communities. If there is a demand from bands in his constituency, he should certainly encourage them to apply. There is not a city-centric approach to funding awards from the Arts Council or, indeed, any of DCAL's other arm's-length bodies. Funding is on the basis of need and demand, in this case in rural communities.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

3. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what additional storage provision is available for locally excavated artefacts. (AQO 6385/11-15)

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for her question. The storage of locally excavated artefacts is a matter, in the first instance, for the landowners of the sites where excavations are undertaken in accordance with the Historic Monuments and Archaeological Objects Order 1995 and the Environment Agency's licensing procedures. No arrangements are in place for my Department to provide additional storage for objects and archives that landowners, developers or commercial archaeologists have not presented to museums for assessment and possible acquisition into their collections.

The Member may be aware that a recent survey commissioned by the Environment Agency, which is responsible for the licensing of all excavations in the North, estimates that over 1,800 archives are held by commercial archaeologists on behalf of developers. Those have a volume of 704 cubic metres, which is the equivalent of 10 40-foot shipping containers, stored at a range of locations across Ireland. I understand that Minister Durkan is being advised on options for taking that forward, which may lead to an Executive paper being presented that will address the post-construction boom backlog and related storage issues.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for her response. I have in front of me the survey findings. However, I should point out that the survey also talks about the limited capacity of the museums sector to accept archives. A letter from the Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland — that is North and South — also says that there is a lack of properly qualified archaeological curators in museums at a local and national level. That obviously points to the fact that we need more curators in our museums. What steps will the Minister take to address that deficiency?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for her question. I have not been presented with that concern by the museums body. However, I am happy to forward that on. As the Chair of the Environment Committee, the Member will know that there is a weakness in PPS 6 around who has responsibility for archives of artefacts and ecofacts that have been found. I have no doubt of the curation skills and expertise in museums. I hope that the report, which I have not seen, from the working group will provide a better way forward. We all share a fear, not only about treasures that have been lost but those that could potentially be lost in the future. We can exhibit those and learn from them as a society and as communities, because they tell us about our ways in the past. That sits very heavily on a lot of us. I hope that the Minister of the Environment brings forward, through the working group, a way forward that we all can respond to positively.