Northern Ireland Assembly, 14 October 2014

336 contributions from 55 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Before we proceed with business, I wish to inform the House that the Deputy Speakers and I met this morning. I have agreed the allocation of functions with my colleagues in accordance with Standing Order 4(7) for this week.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I return to the matter raised by Mr Allister last Tuesday, 7 October, when he queried how Deputy Speaker Beggs had dealt with his question during a ministerial statement. I have now considered the Hansard report of last Tuesday's plenary sitting and reviewed the relevant Standing Orders, Speaker's rulings and the 'Assembly Companion'. I have reached a conclusion on my response, which I discussed with the other Deputy Speakers this morning. We agreed that I would deal with it today. The Member has been informed — I note his presence — that I would respond to him at this stage in proceedings today so that he could make himself available to hear it.

Standing Orders expressly state that the Speaker's decision on all questions of procedure is final and that that authority applies equally to Deputy Speakers. As the Member well knows, that means that, regardless of the circumstances of a ruling and whether a Member agrees with it, he or she is obliged to abide by it. Last Tuesday, therefore, the Member was clearly in breach of Standing Orders when he challenged the Deputy Speaker after the ministerial statement and when he later questioned the consistency with which the Deputy Speaker had chaired that item of business.

Furthermore, the Member also suggested that the Deputy Speaker had acted at the behest of a Clerk. Mr Spratt raised a point of order about that, and he was indeed correct that that was a breach of the conventions of the House. Speaker's rulings make it very clear that staff are there to assist Members in the performance of their duties. The Deputy Speakers and I are grateful for the advice and assistance we receive from the Clerks, but the House, and the Member in particular, should be in no doubt that we are entirely responsible for the conduct of business.

Decisions rest with the Chair, and I reiterate that it is not in order to challenge those decisions.

The Member concerned has had several warnings on previous occasions, so while I would welcome an apology to the House, I am not living in the expectation of that being forthcoming. In accordance with Speaker's rulings, I therefore inform the Member that his speaking opportunities will be restricted from now until 10 November 2014.

I know that the Member will try to spin this, but let me be clear: this is all about his behaviour towards the Chair and towards Deputy Speaker Beggs last week. It was amongst the worst that we have seen in the Assembly.

The Deputy Speakers and I are determined that the authority of the Chair will be upheld and that such blatant breaches of Standing Orders, Speaker's rulings and Assembly conventions cannot be allowed to pass without consequence. Let us move on.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I have informed the House —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I have informed the House that you will not be allowed to speak unless you wish to apologise. I ask you to resume your seat.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I wish to make a relevant comment —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I am not inviting you to make any comment.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— which will address the issue.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I am asking you whether you wish to take the opportunity to make an apology. If not, resume your seat immediately.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I wish to address the issue, which may well encompass what you have in mind.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Let us move on. That does not satisfy me. Let us move on.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I think that we will see more of a kangaroo court tonight on 'Spotlight'. Are you permitting me to make a comment?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I am not.

Ministerial Statement

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I am very glad to have this opportunity to make a statement to the Assembly on two hugely important matters for health and social care services: first, the outcome of the October monitoring round for my Department, and, secondly, the report of the international working group on paediatric congenital cardiac services (PCCS).

Since I have been in office, there have been a number of challenging issues to address. This statement deals with two of them: the financial position for 2014-15 and paediatric congenital cardiac services.

As the Assembly is aware, the Executive reached agreement last Thursday on the October monitoring round for 2014-15. As part of that agreement, my Department received an additional allocation of £60 million. That was on top of the conditional allocation of £20 million, which was from the June monitoring round.

Whilst £80 million is most welcome, there are still consequences for the provision of health and social care services as it is simply not possible to maintain current levels of service provision in the absence of all the required levels of funding. This statement updates the House on the implications of the October monitoring round for my Department.

The Executive, the Health Committee and the Assembly are well aware that my Department has experienced significant financial pressures, notably since autumn 2013, and these have yet to be resolved. The pressures are in a wide range of areas, including children's services, the quality and safety of services, elective care and unscheduled care, and they reflect the increasing demands on health and social care and the technological and treatment advances that can now be provided. These unfunded pressures are despite my Department having delivered efficiency savings of £490 million over the last three years. Indeed, a further £170 million is planned for delivery in the current financial year.

My Department made significant monitoring round bids in June and October 2014. The Executive and the Health Committee were advised that additional funding needed to be found to avoid the worst consequences for patients and clients in Northern Ireland. I very much welcome the £80 million that is being made available. It is a significant investment, but it is disappointing that £87 million is being handed back to the Treasury for welfare reform penalties rather than being invested in local health and social care. This approach means that I will not be able to take forward many of the plans that would have improved health and social care services and the outcomes for the Northern Ireland population.

Indeed, if we had obtained that £87 million, we would be extremely happy. Even our share of that £87 million would have been very welcome.

I assure you that my priority is that the services that we provide must be safe and effective for all the patients that they serve. Unfortunately, that may mean that some services will need to be reviewed, and that, in some cases, opening times may need to be restricted. Indeed, some services may need to cease altogether, based, of course, on the views of clinicians on safe staffing levels. However, with the additional funding that is being made available, I expect trusts to avoid the worst of these consequences and to minimise any reductions in the use of agency and bank nurses, social workers and locum doctors.

Whilst some further investment in elective care will be possible, this will be much less than the full extent of the pressure, and that means that the current restrictions on the use of the independent sector will have to continue. I assure you, however, that those patients with existing appointments in the independent sector will be treated. All other patients will be treated within the local trusts in priority order, but, inevitably, this increased pressure on trusts will lead to longer waiting times.

The extent of the pressure on my budget means that I will have no option but to impose further cuts in other areas, including departmental arm's-length bodies, my Department's administrative costs and pharmacy spending. There has been further discussion in recent days about restraint on wider public sector pay. I believe that this is a necessary measure, given the extent of financial constraints, but it should be applied consistently across all areas of the public sector, and not restricted to one element of the workforce. I strongly advocate that any pay restraint imposed on health and social care workers should be consistent with those applied in other public sector organisations.

On the more positive side, the additional £80 million will fund a wide range of existing expenditure commitments and allow further new investments to proceed. I will allocate the funding to those areas that minimise the worst of the consequences on front line patient care, thus addressing the serious concerns previously raised by the Chief Medical Officer. I particularly want to ensure that unscheduled care and patient flow is supported to reduce the number of breaches of the emergency department waiting time standards, including through the challenging winter period. This includes ensuring that existing domiciliary care packages are maintained and that some new care packages can also be provided.

I also intend to provide support to enable National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) drugs and treatments to continue to be provided, which will mean that patients can benefit from specialist treatments without considerable extension of waiting times. I know that the Chair of the Health Committee will welcome the next part of my statement: investment will be made in the Altnagelvin radiotherapy centre during 2014-15 so that it can be opened as intended in 2016. The funds will also mean that the cath labs in Altnagelvin can continue to operate a vital 24/7 service as planned, and that some further support can be provided to the voluntary and community sector and the Family Fund.

For mental health and learning disability, 116 clients will benefit from being resettled into the community, and hence be able to access the facilities that we have planned for them. I am also able to provide further support to drive forward important elements of reform under the Transforming Your Care agenda, allowing integrated care partnerships to make further progress and ensuring that there is a greater equity in reformed services across Northern Ireland.

In the coming weeks, specific allocations to front line services will be made to the Health and Social Care Board (HSCB), the Public Health Agency (PHA) and the trusts to reflect my ministerial priorities and the pressures being experienced in local areas. I will then expect the trusts to break even and be accountable to me, the Assembly and the public for the performance standards that I set.

I will turn now to another very important issue, that of paediatric congenital cardiac services. As Members will recall, on 9 December 2013, my predecessor, Mr Poots, made a statement to the Assembly announcing that, in conjunction with his counterpart in the Republic of Ireland, he had appointed a team of international clinicians to provide an assessment of the optimal model for a cardiac surgery and interventional cardiology service for congenital heart disease to meet the respective needs of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The international working group (IWG) was chaired by Dr John Mayer, Professor of Surgery at Harvard Medical School and senior associate in cardiac surgery at Boston Children's Hospital.

The members of the group were Dr Adrian Moran, the associate clinical professor at Tufts medical school and chief of paediatric cardiology at Maine Medical Center, USA; and Dr John Sinclair, consultant paediatric cardiac anaesthetist at the Royal Hospital for Sick Children in Glasgow. Nursing expertise and advice was provided to the international working group by Dr Patricia Hickey, the vice president of cardiovascular and critical care services and associate chief nursing officer at Boston Children's Hospital.

In my written statement to the Assembly on 24 September, I announced that the international working group had presented its report to the two Departments, that both were considering the report and that I would subsequently announce our response to the international working group's full recommendations together with the Minister for Health in the Republic Of Ireland, Leo Varadkar TD. Today, I am following up on that commitment. Members may ask why there was a delay between receiving the report and it being published. It is being published as I speak. The reason for that is that, because it was a joint report commissioned by the two Ministers, we had to seek the agreement of our colleagues in the Irish Republic before we could release it.

In reaching this decision, I have given careful consideration to the report in the wider context of the various reviews and assessments that have been carried out in recent years relating to the paediatric congenital cardiac surgery service in Northern Ireland. I have given specific consideration to the report and recommendations of the Health and Social Care Board's PCCS working group of April 2013; the views of the parents' groups, which I very much welcome, such as Heartbeat Northern Ireland, which supported those recommendations; the views of the Children's Heartbeat Trust as appended to the report and recommendations of the Health and Social Care Board's PCCS working group; and the proposed model for the future delivery of paediatric cardiac services that was submitted to my Department by Belfast Trust cardiologists in March 2013.

I have met many of the groups involved in the debate since my appointment. It was in that context that my predecessor and Minister Varadkar's predecessor commissioned the international working group to assess, in both jurisdictions and on the basis of a single service, the current and projected need for the service; the way in which the service is currently delivered; and the possibilities for configuring the service that could best meet the needs of the overall patient population.

All the recommendations in the report are important. Indeed, the international working group has highlighted their interdependent nature. I know that the question of whether surgery would remain in Belfast was of major concern to the patients' families and the Assembly in particular. Like my predecessor, I wanted to end the uncertainty on that specific issue. It was for that reason that I announced on 24 September that the report had recommended that all paediatric cardiac surgery and paediatric interventional cardiology should cease to be delivered in Belfast. That is one of 14 recommendations that, together, make up the working group's proposed model for delivering that vitally important service.

The service is important not just for now but for current and future generations of people born with heart conditions, many of whom live a full and normal life into adulthood thanks to the advances made in that medical specialty in recent decades. It is the fourth successive report to recommend that paediatric cardiac surgery should cease in Belfast. The first was the Sir Ian Kennedy review, which was published in August 2012. The second was the Health and Social Care Board's PCCS working group review in April 2013, which I mentioned earlier. The third was the Chief Medical Officer's report to my predecessor on the evidential base and clinical practice aspects of congenital cardiac services, which was published in August 2013. The weight of evidence based on clinical assessment is clear. In the interests of patient safety and to ensure the future provision of a safe, effective and sustainable service for those vulnerable patients and their families, it is my responsibility as Health Minister to act on that evidence.

As I said, the international working group's report makes a total of 14 recommendations that are interdependent. The view of the international working group is that the recommendations cannot be easily separated without threatening the viability of the proposed solution. The proposal that paediatric cardiac surgery and interventional cardiology should be provided by a single children's heart centre in Dublin is one of a series of interdependent recommendations that make up the IWG's proposed model.

From the outset, that work has had the optimisation of the service as its main focus. The recommendation should therefore not be viewed in isolation.

I believe that the overall package addresses the range of serious concerns that patients' families, patients' groups and clinicians have made known following previous reviews. They have presented questions and challenges and are to be commended for doing so. In turn, the international working group has taken those views on board, and the Chief Medical Officer has confirmed his view that the proposed approach offers the best opportunity to provide that important service in an appropriate, safe and deliverable framework.

Like some of the patients’ families and their representatives, I, too, had an opportunity to meet Dr Mayer and the international working group when they visited Northern Ireland in April 2014. Of course, that was in my previous capacity as Deputy Chair of the Health Committee. In doing that, I was impressed by their clear desire to hear about the experiences of the families and listen to their concerns and their commitment to addressing those within their recommendations. Indeed, the report speaks of the willingness of the international working group, observed during their visits in both jurisdictions at all levels, to have a solution at all levels based on political, clinical, policy/management and parental views.

I am satisfied that the international working group has fulfilled its terms of reference, and that view is shared by my counterpart in the Republic of Ireland, Minister Leo Varadkar.

The proposed solution provides for a surgical service that would see children treated in accordance with the highest standards of safety. In addition, it points to opportunities for: enhancing the support we make available to their families; involving their representatives, as well as clinicians, in governance arrangements; improving communication and the flow of information between clinical teams in Dublin and Belfast; and further improving the transport service that we provide to get patients to where they need to be as quickly and safely as possible.

Time will not permit that I go through the detail of each and every recommendation with you, but I urge Members to study the report that has just been released. I know that Members will want to take time to read the report for themselves, and it is now available on the departmental website, but I want to draw your attention to some aspects and themes arising from the recommendations.

Recommendation 7 of the international working group's report proposes the key change to the current service in Northern Ireland — that those arrangements should be brought to a conclusion and that all paediatric cardiac surgery and interventional cardiology should take place in Dublin, in Our Lady's Hospital in Crumlin.

One of the major concerns expressed in the wake of the previous report was that cessation of surgery would impact on the ability to maintain specialist medical skills in Belfast, which, in turn, would restrict the service available. However, I am reassured to note that the maintenance of those life-saving skills is central to recommendation 4, which advocates the flow of nursing and physician personnel between the two jurisdictions. It is a two-way street, as it draws on the respective strengths of both jurisdictions to form one service — effectively one team serving one patient population. It details how Belfast-based paediatric cardiologists and paediatric cardiac anaesthetists should participate regularly in procedures with colleagues in Dublin, which will ensure that their skills are maintained.

The report also seeks to improve the experience and the involvement of families and their representatives in the proposed model. I have greatly valued the opportunity to meet the parents and family representatives. There are some very caring couples who are doing so much to look after very ill children. They are to be admired and supported. In that regard, recommendation 2 advocates the establishment of a family advisory group with representatives from both jurisdictions to provide direct input to a single governance vehicle, which I will say more about shortly. The family advisory group’s aim will be to give a voice to families and also to serve as a means of providing feedback about how the system is functioning.

Family concerns are also addressed in two further recommendations. Recommendation 8 seeks enhanced patient and family services in Dublin for all patients and families who do not reside in the Dublin metropolitan area. That would include assistance with travel, lodging, meals and other practical matters. Indeed, many parents have made these points to me about the practical difficulties of dealing not only with a very ill child but with accommodation, food, travel arrangements etc. Recommendation 9 proposes the integration of the activities of clinical nurse specialists and advanced practice nurses in Belfast and Dublin to provide patient and family support, to manage the transfers of patients between Belfast and Dublin and to co-manage clinics.

This is an aspect of the model recommended by the IWG that I particularly approve of in that it provides families with full participation through their representatives on both the governance committee and the proposed family liaison service. If this is implemented, it will empower families in a way that has not happened before; providing them with an opportunity to ensure that their concerns, for instance, about the provision of accommodation and reimbursement of expenses are fully addressed.

There are four recommendations on the specifics of arrangements to ensure integration of services through IT links and case conferences. Those are recommendations 3, 6, 12 and 13.

The IWG has recognised the importance of effective emergency transport arrangements to make an all-island service function effectively, and indeed it met transport providers during its visit in April. Recommendation 10 calls for quarterly meetings between the paediatric and neonatal patient transport services in the two jurisdictions. This aims to facilitate and further strengthen safe transfers between outlying areas and the centres in Dublin and Belfast, as well as transfers between the centres. Recommendation 11 recognises the need for the Republic of Ireland to continue to upgrade its paediatric transport services and suggests building on the expert inpatient extracorporeal life support (ECLS) services existing in Dublin to form a mobile ECLS service.

Finally, recommendation 1, which effectively ties the whole model together, relates to the establishment of a single governance committee, composed of patient representatives, senior clinicians including surgeons, cardiologists and nurses, and the Chief Medical Officers and commissioners from both jurisdictions, to address all operational and policy issues. It would oversee the operations of the personnel, facilities and institutions involved in the care of patients of all ages with congenital heart disease. Its scope, as envisaged by the IWG, would be to effectively influence the deployment of capital and personnel resources for the management of patients with congenital heart disease in both jurisdictions. Terms of reference would be agreed by the respective health authorities in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

There are issues for us to work through regarding the practicalities of this recommendation as it has been described in the report. However, we believe that there may be an alternative joint governance vehicle to the IWG model, which would be better suited to our separate clinical and statutory structures but would maintain the principle of placing clinicians and families at the forefront of influencing decisions with real input from patient representatives. My Department and the Department of Health in the Republic of Ireland have reached broad consensus that this vehicle would operate effectively as a clinical network and still deliver the aim of the recommendation.

The report therefore gives us an achievable model. It gives us an indication of how to get there, but it does not prescribe the detail about exactly how the transfer should occur, when surgery in Belfast should cease, how Dublin's capacity can be increased or what happens with patients in the meantime. This is for me to agree with Minister Varadkar, and our Departments are working together closely to establish how we can build on the willingness that the IWG encountered during its visit and to plan how to make the model a reality.

Minister Varadkar and I have both agreed to accept all the IWG's recommendations and are committed to their full implementation, subject to the outcome of any necessary consultation. We are issuing a joint policy statement to that effect today. I will say something further about the consultation in a moment.

In implementing this new model, there will be a requirement to plan and take it forward in stages, as some elements will take longer to achieve than others. I know that the immediate concern of patients, their families and their clinicians is around what happens now and in the short term. I can assure you that my Department has been working closely with the Health and Social Care Board, the Belfast Trust and colleagues in the Republic of Ireland to understand what a pathway to implementation may look like, what obstacles would need to be addressed and what investment may be needed along the way. In the meantime, and central to that, of course, is ensuring that, throughout the interim period, we have arrangements in place to ensure that patients receive the best possible care.

First and foremost, we will need to ensure that a suitable, safe alternative is in place immediately after elective surgery and interventional cardiology ceases in Belfast. Currently, a very small number of paediatric cardiac operations and interventional procedures take place in Belfast. Those that do are planned, involve less complex procedures, exclude very young children and are carried out by surgeons who are based in Dublin and travel to Belfast once or twice a month. In highlighting that, I want to put on record my sincere gratitude for their continued willingness to do so over a prolonged and uncertain period. That has been hugely appreciated, not least by the families of the patients they treated.

All other elective surgery is carried out in heart centres in England, namely in London and Birmingham, whilst provision also exists for patients requiring emergency treatment to be treated in Dublin or in specialist centres in England. Again, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the clinical teams in Birmingham and the Evelina children's heart hospital for the service that they provide to Northern Ireland children and their families.

With regard to children requiring emergency surgery, I know that Members have expressed concern about the future arrangements for diagnosis of children born in the north or north-west of Northern Ireland, where transfer times to Dublin take considerably longer. Ultimately, it will be for the clinicians to decide whether a child should be transferred directly to Our Lady's Children's Hospital in Crumlin or whether that child should be transferred directly from Belfast to England. A key aspect of the single-service model is that, when it is fully implemented, it will have the capacity to deal with all emergency cases. However, it will be some 18 months before the model is fully in place and operating to capacity.

The current arrangements for emergency transfers have recently been the subject of review. There have been two cases recently, one in August and one in September, where it has not been possible for Our Lady's Children's Hospital in Crumlin to accommodate cases for emergency surgery. The HSCB is engaged with the Health Service Executive in the Republic of Ireland about this, to ensure that any additional steps that are necessary to ensure the robustness of the current arrangements are put in place. That only serves to emphasise the critical nature of ensuring safe, effective and robust services in the long term, which I am confident the proposed model will achieve.

In the short term, it will be important to ensure a well-managed extension of the current service level agreements (SLAs) between the two providers in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and, of course, England, where appropriate. It is most important that the existing SLAs continue in operation, augmented as necessary, to enhance the current arrangements and are quickly replaced by the single-service model proposed by the international working group. Further implementation will be on the basis of the outcome of any necessary consultation and by early agreement on the resource timelines and service integration requirements. That will be driven and carried out within appropriate structured project management arrangements with all the necessary steering, oversight and consultation structures required, in line with the international working group's recommendations. In that respect, Leo Varadkar and me have instructed our officials to take forward preparation work with immediate effect, with a view to having a clear action plan agreed and in place by the end of December 2014.

The current arrangements under the SLAs will remain in place until December 2014. Thus, the immediate impact of the removal of surgery from Belfast will be that, from January 2015, more children from Northern Ireland are likely to receive elective surgery at specialist centres in England, as required, until the appropriate capacity is in place in Crumlin. Interventional cardiology will cease in Belfast from April 2015, and Northern Ireland children will then receive that service in Crumlin, delivered by Belfast cardiologists working as part of the integrated team in Dublin.

On 25 April 2013, my predecessor acknowledged receipt of the report of the HSCB's PCCS working group, and said that he wished to consider its recommendations before reaching a decision. Subsequent to that, he and his counterpart in the Republic of Ireland commissioned the IWG to carry out its assessment, which I have published today. I, therefore, wish to advise the Assembly that, in light of the IWG’s recommended model, I propose to recommend the PCCS working group's proposals on the following basis: that consideration will be given to the implementation of the recommended service specification in the context of the IWG’s model; and that the working group’s preferred way forward for the future configuration of the service for Northern Ireland should be taken account of in the implementation of the IWG’s model . It is notable that both groups reached the same conclusion, which is that surgery should cease in Belfast and be carried out in Dublin.

The HSCB will bring forward detailed investment proposals to further develop a cardiology centre of excellence at Belfast Trust and to strengthen the Northern Ireland network. In that regard, I will ask the HSCB to work closely with the Belfast Trust’s management and cardiologists in developing the investment proposals. I wish to place on record my thanks to the board, the Public Health Agency and the working group for the extensive work that they completed in providing advice to my predecessor.

Members will recall that my predecessor announced the Belfast Trust’s proposals to consider the possible transfer of children’s cardiac surgery from the Royal Victoria Hospital to the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children, subject to the completion of a risk assessment, and has concluded that such a transfer would be desirable. As paediatric surgical services are due to end on 31 December 2014, I have asked my officials to write to the HSCB for an updated position on the proposed transfer as this would now appear to be unnecessary.

I intend to announce details of the public consultation on the recommended model in the near future. I am making the report available on the departmental website today, and I have outlined in the statement the link to it on the Department's website. I urge all concerned to consult it, as it is now live.

In the meantime, I have instructed my Department to work with commissioners and providers to immediately plan for the implementation of the service model recommended by the IWG. I will await the outcome of the consultation before making my final decision on whether to implement the model. My decision to proceed with the planning is in keeping with the principle that precautions should be applied, given the vulnerability of the sustainability of the service in the Belfast Trust.

In conclusion, the proposed model is absolutely focused on patient safety and the effective delivery of care. My predecessor and I have been motivated throughout this work by the desire to provide the best possible standard of care for children in Northern Ireland who suffer from congenital heart disease and their families. The simple reality is that we cannot reach these standards alone. That is the clear message from the work of IWG, and I cannot and will not ignore their expertise and experience in reaching that view. Patient safety is central to this decision. I commend the work of the IWG to the Assembly.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for his statement. As this is his first ministerial statement, I congratulate him on his elevation. It was remiss of me not to do it yesterday.

There is a lot of detail in the statement, but two important issues are covered, specifically in relation to the breakdown of the budget and the very welcome news around the radiotherapy unit and the cath lab. I am delighted that that is planned. Has DFP put any conditions or restrictions on how the £80 million will be spent, or will priority be at the Minister's discretion? Can I confirm how much of it will be allocated towards public health, given the policy direction on early intervention and prevention?

Moving on to children's heart services, what I am hearing today is a shift from the hub-and-spoke model to an all-Ireland single heart centre based in Dublin. Can I confirm that the hub-and-spoke model is now not in place and that it is a single centre? You said in your statement that the overall package addresses the range of serious concerns with patients' families. How will that take place? Can we have more detail on that?

Your statement specifically suggests that it does not prescribe the detail of how exactly the transfer would occur, when surgery in Belfast would cease, how Dublin's capacity can be increased and what happens with patients in the meantime. What assurances can the Minister give, given that there will be a consultation period?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I thank the Chair of the Committee for going easy on me with questions on my first oral statement. There are so many issues to be dealt with. This will be quite complex because some Members will ask questions on budgets, others will ask about cardiology, and some will mix the two.

First, on the budgetary issue, there are no restrictions on the Department in how we allocate the £80 million additional funding. There are, of course, conditions on the £20 million that was allocated in the June monitoring round. As the honourable Member knows, there are quite strong caveats in the mechanism that led to the release of the £80 million, but that is being dealt with by the Executive and DFP.

As I said to her before, £80 million is not enough for us to meet the widely recognised needs that have emerged in health and social care in Northern Ireland. So, between the board, the DHSSPS finance staff, the Public Health Agency etc, we will sit down to prioritise where we need to spend this money. It is no secret that all five trusts are under considerable pressure at the moment and have exceeded their budgets. We will have to look at that situation and bring it into some form of balance.

The only real specific that I can outline — the Chair and other Members for Londonderry have written to me about the issue on many occasions — is that the Altnagelvin facility will go ahead as planned. I know that that will be welcomed by her community and all those in Northern Ireland, Donegal etc who will benefit from that. I am relieved that we have at least been able to deal with that issue.

The hub-and-spoke model was considered before the international working group's report that issued today. I cannot, under any circumstances, ignore the fact that we now have four separate reports, all written by highly acclaimed and knowledgeable experts, that point in the one direction. It would be negligent of me, and I would be ignoring the interests of the patients, if I ignored what those reports say. We will go to a central model, but the Clark clinic will remain open, and services will still be delivered there. However, serious interventions will be dealt with by Dublin or, if they are extremely complex, by Birmingham or London. So we are moving towards a centralised model.

You asked for timelines. We reckon that it will take 18 months to get this all in motion. I can tell you that there is great goodwill from the HSE in Dublin, and we are also committed to it. I regard it as a priority that I will meet Leo Varadkar within the next few weeks so that we can discuss this very carefully.

I emphasise that the £80 million includes the £20 million that came from the June monitoring round, which has some conditions attached to it. It is conditional on assurances of steps to be taken to break even and live within our budget. I can tell you that it is an extraordinarily challenging target.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

I also thank the Minister for his very comprehensive statement. Like the Minister and, I imagine, most Health Committee members, I have met the parents and parent representative groups concerned with paediatric congenital heart services. The statement refers to the family advisory group and the inclusion of parents and parent representatives in decision-making. What specifically does the Minister see as the role of the parents and parent representative groups in the implementation of the new model?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I apologise to the Chair, as she raised a similar point about the involvement of the parents. My door is always open to the parents. Indeed, shortly after my appointment, I attended a fundraising event in Banbridge, where I met many of the parents. We have met various groups. I spent most of yesterday dealing with the concerns of parents. I also greatly value the input of Mr Swann, who has a very clearly defined personal experience of the issue.

Through the proposed model, we are determined that family representatives will have a voice on the governance vehicle and the family advisory group. We are serious about that because I realise that, for many parents, this is a very difficult decision and a bitter pill to swallow. I accept that. We are determined to make the practical realities of attending Crumlin as simplified, efficient and caring as possible for parents who already have the huge burden of looking after a terribly ill child. Therefore, the groups established under the IWG report are designed to give those parents the optimal input. Leo Varadkar and I will listen very carefully to parents' recommendations through those groups. Already, the parents have raised with me some very practical difficulties. They have, for instance, to wait for three months before being reimbursed for the expense of going to Dublin or England. There must be procedures that can be established to ensure that that does not happen. A small issue, but certainly an issue if you are a young person, is the lack of Wi-Fi availability after a certain time of night for children undergoing cardiology services in the Royal. That is a big issue to a young person or a teenager, and we will have to look at that.

We will do everything we can to facilitate the parents and families in this situation because we know how difficult it will be to ask them to travel to Dublin when they have been used to using the Clark clinic.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement. I congratulate the international working group for the work that it has done. We welcome this, particularly the joint nature of the discussions. Minister, you made the statement, but I think it only appropriate that we from the SDLP congratulate your predecessor, Mr Poots, on his sterling work in furthering this project.

It throws up some questions, as you outlined. In your previous answer, you touched on the parents. Would it be appropriate for recommendation 1 to come ahead of the consultation to allow the immediate establishment of that working group so that parents, clinicians and all the rest of them can involve themselves in early discussion?

You talked about the economics earlier. Can the Minister reflect on whether the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme (PPRS) would make a substantial difference to the actual pharmacy spend? In other words, does he accept the notion that embracing the scheme would mean a zero rise in the pharmacy bill?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

First, I will deal with Mr McKinney's first point. As he knows, we have announced a review of the individual funding request (IFR) system. We believe that the report is due back on my desk by the end of November. It will deal with the exceptional holiday criteria for when clinicians ask for specific drugs. Before we go any further, it is important that we look at that. It is only six weeks away and may deal with some of the problems that he and many other Members have with the present situation regarding the 40 cancer drugs. I cannot pre-empt what the review will say, but, given the very short time span, I think that we should look at it before we revisit the model that he outlined.

The Member mentioned moving ahead during the consultation period. I think that he will understand that we are bound by certain protocols. If you announce a policy decision, you have to allow time for people to make their views on it known. However, that does not preclude us going ahead and preparing the way. My understanding is that officials are already meeting to discuss the suggestion that he made. Provided that that can be done in a way that keeps it watertight, from a legal point of view, I do not see any problems with it. Equally, there may well be people who will read the report today and find something that they wish to point out to us or something that they have observations on. Therefore, to be absolutely watertight, we have to ensure that we have 12 weeks of consultation, or whatever period is deemed necessary.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his statement and congratulate him on his elevation to Minister. I look forward to working with him. I also look forward, Minister, to hearing more from you at this evening's Adjournment debate. Given the timing of the statement, I should, perhaps, be trying to secure more Adjournment debates.

You mentioned the north-west, which is the furthest away, and we need to ensure the early diagnosis of those vulnerable children. Will you outline what infrastructure will be put in place?

You mentioned the parents, who we all work very closely with. How do you plan to address their very real fears and the concerns of the local families who you have met? Words and promises simply are not enough.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

First, the wishes and views of the parents in Northern Ireland will have exactly the same weight as the wishes of the parents from the Irish Republic. This is meant to be a cooperative model, which will mean that any concerns that they have will be directed to the clinicians, to those in Dublin in Our Lady's and to the relevant Departments. So, I see this as an exciting model that will mean that their views will be at the core of this new arrangement.

Also, I know that she perhaps is quite annoyed about the fact that this statement was made on the morning of her Adjournment debate on the same issue as far as Upper Bann patients are concerned. There was no attempt to head her off at the pass. What simply happened was that the timing was such that an agreement was made with the authorities in the Irish Republic that we would jointly publish this report today. We will address tonight the specific issues that she will undoubtedly raise of behalf of her constituents, but it was just the way that it happened, and there is no cunning plan, as it were, to deal with that. I am quite happy to address her concerns tonight, but, of course, she will have to accept that there will be a huge degree of overlap because the arrangements that we outlined this morning obviously apply in their entirety to patients coming from Upper Bann, as they do for all of Northern Ireland.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Like others, I welcome the Minister's first statement to the Assembly. First, I have to express my sadness that we are losing such a service providing cardiac surgery from Belfast City Hospital. That having been said, at least we are having a service on the island of Ireland, which is preferable to having to travel across the water. From experience, parents tell me that they would rather be in this island.

My main question is on the financial mess that our health service is in at this time and has been in for some time. I remind the new Minister that the Finance Minister accused the former Health Minister of mismanagement of the budget. That is a very serious accusation, and it seems to be that that is where the mess that we are in is at now. The threat to the quality and safety of our services cannot be underestimated. Can the Minister tell the Assembly whether that mismanagement by the former Minister on the budget has been identified? If it has, can he tell the Assembly what is being done and where to make sure that it will not continue? And can he —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Can you just come to your point?

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Can the Minister come back to the Assembly and tell us that the mismanagement has been identified and rectified?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

As the honourable Member will be aware because he sat on the Health Committee at the time, the previous Minister Mr McGimpsey predicted that there were would be 4,000 compulsory redundancies resulting from the CSR when the DUP and Mr Poots took over. That has not happened. There have been no compulsory redundancies whatsoever, and, indeed, Mr Poots took on an extra 500 nurses. We are about to take on 61 health visitors, and we have increased the number of consultants and doctors.

So, the overspend that he is referring to was a mere £13 million, which is 0·3% of the overall budget. The reason for that is that the previous Minister decided to continue with elective surgery so that people who were in misery and having very difficult issues with hips, knees etc got the treatment that they deserved. That was quite easily dealt with, but what he has to accept is that, last autumn, after having managed to achieve £490 million worth of savings in the budget through better and more efficient uses of the resources, there was a huge surge in demand that occurred in autumn 2013 and which is still with us. That is the problem. It is not a misallocation of resources but is simply that demand has risen dramatically. As he knows, demand is rising by 6% and resources are rising by 2%. Inevitably, something was going to give, and it gave, as it were, in October and November 2013. So it is not a case of mismanagement, it is simply the case that we had many more people demanding our services, and we had a restricted budget to meet that.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

The Finance Minister thinks —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Order.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I, too, congratulate the Minister on his appointment and thank him for his statement this morning. As he and others in the House are aware, I am journeying with cancer at the moment. On behalf of those who journey with me and, indeed, the excellent clinicians who deal with cancer services throughout Northern Ireland, I ask the Minister what cancer services he will be able to introduce this year.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

First, we wish the Member for South Belfast all the best and admire his courage in being so open about having cancer. That has been extremely helpful.

As you know, there are new services planned for oncology in Northern Ireland. The acute oncology services that we will introduce in February 2015 will require 30 programmed activities (PAs) of consultant time to establish quality services for patients with complications from cancer or cancer treatment, patients with advanced cancer or those admitted to hospital with a newly diagnosed cancer. That will assist the implementation of NICE guidance and guidance on metastatic malignant diseases of an unknown primary origin. Excuse the complicated language. From 2015, 31 PAs of consultant time are required to ensure effective service delivery, resilience and sustainability.

I think that we have a lot to be proud of in cancer services in Northern Ireland. For the first time this year, we can say that more people with a cancer diagnosis will be alive in five years' time than will have passed on. We have crossed that Rubicon and passed that very important line in the sand, where we are moving towards cancer being a long-term condition rather than a life-threatening illness. There are still many thousands of people in Northern Ireland who are facing a very dark valley as a result of a cancer diagnosis, but things are moving in the right direction. Many outcomes in Northern Ireland are ahead of those in the UK and many parts of Europe. We have a lot to be proud of, and there will be further investment. Therefore, things are moving in the right direction despite very difficult financial times.

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

I also wish the Minister good luck in his new job, and I know that he will have the interests of patients at heart, given his commitment to health over the years.

On a resourcing matter, I want to ask the Minister about the gap in the out-of-hours GP services based in Strabane for that district. Can they be examined and rectified? On children's specialist services, can the Minister make sure that the service level agreements (SLA) are clearly understood by all hospitals, especially the South West Hospital, so that parents who have an urgently sick child can be reassured about how they should proceed to get the specialist care needed?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I suppose that it was only a matter of time before someone went down to grass-roots level and asked me questions regarding provision in their area. The preparation for today's statement was based on a much higher level of policymaking based on the overall budget. I will examine the two issues that the Member raises about Strabane and the South West Acute Hospital and write to him, because I really could not have anticipated that such a fine detail question would be asked after a much more broad-brush statement.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Members should not need reminding that the questions are about the statement that was issued. It was a very detailed statement that dealt with two specific areas. There will be opportunities in the future to deal with wider issues, particularly in that sphere.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I assure you that mine will be based on the statement. I declare an interest as having a son who is affected by the subject of the statement. In fact, this time last year, we were in Birmingham because Evan had just come through his cardiac surgery.

Minister, in your statement, you say that you will await the outcome of the 12-week consultation, but it also states that the SLAs will cease in 10 weeks' time, which will move more elective surgery to England until places are available in Crumlin. From our meeting yesterday, I assume that it will be 18 months before those places are available.

The interventional cardiology will cease in six months' time, and all the surgery will move to Dublin. Your statement indicated that Dublin was unable to cope with two emergency cases, one in August and one in September, which was only a few weeks ago. Minister, when you put those three timing issues into one place at one time, can you reassure me that individual care pathways can be established for each child before December and before these changes start to implement the surgeries that will affect the children and families in Northern Ireland?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I thank the Member and his all-party group for the evidence and information that they have given us on this issue. I wish his son all the best as he goes through this difficult time in his life.

There are many areas between the statement today and the complete change in 18 months' time that will have to be examined very carefully and phased. However, we are dealing with a situation where we can no longer continue to provide a first-class service, given the patient numbers that we have in Northern Ireland. We are not anywhere near the 400 children that we need to provide a first-class service. That is a fact of life and the way that medicine is going. I will be liaising very closely with parent groups and the Member as we go through this difficult process to try to ensure that the movement from one situation to the other is done in a way that will have the least impact on vulnerable children. The pathways is one of the issues that will have to be looked at. At the end of the day, I hope that he accepts that we are doing this with the primary motivation of providing the best possible service for our children.

We are pretty certain that the SLA for elective surgery in Belfast will end in December 2014 — two months' time. All other SLAs will continue until the new international working group model is in place. Those include defined pathways for each child. I accept that the gap will be difficult to manage. I have said that there are many, many issues on my desk, and I regard this as being one of the top five. Therefore, I am going to take a deep personal interest in this to make certain that our children are not impacted by it. I have met too many loving, devoted parents throughout Northern Ireland who are caring for terribly ill children not to make certain that I will make this a personal priority. Frankly, I know that if I do not, the Member will be snapping at my heels daily — the quiet, reserved individual that he is — to make absolutely certain that I get this one right in conjunction with my colleagues in the Republic. That is why I am going down to see Leo Varadkar. That is why I have made it a priority to go down to Crumlin to make an assessment for myself, and that is why I will be keeping a very detailed overview of the entire process over the next 18 months.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement, and I congratulate him on his appointment. Elective care waiting lists have grown significantly over the last year. In your statement, you indicated that the investment in elective care will not meet the current pressures that exist in the trusts. In fact, you said that it would lead to elongated waiting times. Can you provide us with some hope as to when our health service will improve, when elective surgery will be brought down to the levels that occur in other parts of the United Kingdom and when the pressures on our A&Es will be resolved?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I was expecting the honourable Member to ask that question. This is a very difficult issue. He has to understand that 63% of the health care budget in Northern Ireland is tied up in salaries, wages and pensions and that another £500 million of the budget is tied up in various contracts. We cannot legally touch those during any financial year without being taken to court and losing. Therefore, the actual aspect of the budget that I have, and that Edwin Poots had, that can be controlled effectively is a very small overall proportion.

One of the areas where we can, as it were, turn off the tap of expenditure is elective care, particularly when it is contracted out to the private sector. It is not a position that any of us wants to be in, and yes, waiting lists will undoubtedly increase. We have already 20,000 people in the system at the moment who are waiting, and that is 1,000 people for every constituency, so I have no doubt that every Member in the House will start receiving letters. However, we simply have to devote the resources to where they are most needed.

Elective care tends to be life-enhancing rather than life-saving. I realise that many people are in considerable pain because they have not had their hip, knee or whatever done, but that is the situation that we are in. My predecessor had to issue information to the private sector telling it that there would be no further referrals apart from those that are in the system. So that, unfortunately, is the price we pay for the huge increase in demand that there has been. We are trying, through the use of trust resources, to put as many people through as we can, but the waiting list is challenging, to put it mildly, and will cause us considerable anguish over the next few months.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I, too, welcome the Minister here today. Can he give us some assurance about the excellent work of the children's hospital at the Royal, especially the Clark Clinic? Will the excellent work that they do there before and after operations — they carry out operations at the moment — continue? Can he give us an assurance that that will continue at the current high standard? Also, it is important that we recognise the excellent work done by the Children's Heartbeat Trust in the lobbying and campaigning that it has done on this issue. A number of us, when we were newly elected, found this to be one of the first issues raised with us.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I concur with the Member on the excellent work done by the charitable sector in this field. It has been very articulate and forceful in representing the needs of parents and their children.

I emphasise that the statement that I have made this morning does not mean the end of paediatric cardiology services in the Belfast Trust. The IWG recommends that the single, all-island model will provide for a fully integrated team from Belfast and Dublin, with Belfast continuing to provide surgery for young adults and the adult population. I will go further by saying that I want to strengthen Belfast as a centre of excellence for cardiology. I have asked the board to bring forward investment proposals to secure this and strengthen the regional cardiac network at the same time. That will secure the specialist skills available in Belfast going forward within the single model.

I agree with the Member in congratulating the previous work done in that hospital, but this is not the end. The very high level cardiac interventions will be done in Dublin from when the model is finished and rolled out. It is a different model, but we still place enormous store by the facilities at the Royal.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his statement. What will the spend on Transforming Your Care be directed towards?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Included in the October monitoring round was a bid of £2·6 million and a proposed investment of £2·4 million. The proposed investment of £2·4 million reflects the ability to spend within the remaining months of 2014-15. These resources will be directed at developing a wide range of early intervention and prevention initiatives, including the treatment of atrial fibrillation, which would enable some 444 strokes to be avoided. There will be a range of investment in what are known as FREDS, including fall prevention, patient education on diabetes, strokes and early supported discharge (ESD), GP education and diabetes investigations. There is also the intention to develop GPs' ability to diagnose and commence treatment without a secondary referral. There will also be a continuation of diabetes self-management pilots, which are aimed at reducing the need for patients to attend outpatient appointments and which reduce insulin prescribing costs and avoid emergency department admissions.

On the capital side, we are continuing with the building of new facilities at Banbridge and Newry, so investment is ongoing. Transforming Your Care continues throughout this, albeit in challenging times. As Members will know, we have made various monitoring round bids for this, and we have not been as successful as we would like to have been.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I am totally committed to the principle that we need to educate our public better in managing their own health. As a result of the agreement last Thursday, a number of services will be continued or expanded. There will be new developments in obesity services, such as the food in schools programme, to increase the levels of consumption of fruit and vegetables in primary-school children, increase access to physical activity programmes and see the development of further community-based initiatives to develop the skills of individuals and families to grow and cook healthy food.

On the flu vaccine, the number of people in the at-risk groups for flu has also been increased beyond the initial planning assumptions. The intranasal flu vaccine has helped Northern Ireland to achieve a higher than average uptake of flu vaccine for children, and those programmes will be able to continue.

Developments in core screening services will include the appointment of additional staff to meet increased demand in diabetic retinopathy; extension of the age for bowel cancer screening from 71 to 74 years; testing for HPV and cervical cancer screening; appointment of staff to provide quality-assured newborn blood spot screening; and the completion of the introduction of enhanced screening for women at a high risk of breast cancer. There will also be specialist nurses for homelessness and for the black and ethnic minority communities.

So there will be positive initiatives within the PHA. However, we still have a long way to go to achieve the right balance of the funding of that organisation, which is so essential.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

That concludes questions on the statement.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I want to seek guidance from the Speaker's Office about the detail of the statement. It covered two serious items: the outcome of the monitoring round and pediatric congenital cardiac services. Perhaps in future such a detailed statement that covers two very serious items could be dealt with in two individual statements.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

That is generally a matter for the Minister. We have a new Minister, and he is obviously running to catch up with his brief and to keep the House informed. We all noted the detail of the statement, but I thought that the Minister was very good in taking questions on the two elements of the statement. For your information, it is a matter for the Minister.

Executive Committee Business

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I beg to move

That the draft Lands Tribunal (Salaries) Order (Northern Ireland) 2014 be approved.

I trust that this item of business will be somewhat shorter than that which the preceding Minister was subjected to.

Under the provisions of the Lands Tribunal and Compensation Act (Northern Ireland) 1964, my Department is responsible for the administration of the Lands Tribunal and determining the remuneration of its judiciary by order, a draft of which must be approved by the Assembly. The tribunal currently consists of a president and one other member, both of whom are appointed by the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission.

The draft order that is before the House provides for an increase of 1% in the annual salaries that are payable to members of the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland, effective from 1 April 2014. That accords with the statement that was made by the Prime Minister on 13 March, following consideration of recommendations made in the thirty-sixth report of the Senior Salaries Review Body, that the Government have decided to increase judicial salaries by 1%. The Department of Finance and Personnel has approved the increase.

At this stage, I wish to thank the Justice Committee for its customary careful and detailed consideration of the draft order. It is with the Committee’s support that I bring the draft order before the House. I commend it to the House.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I will speak very briefly on the motion on behalf of the Committee. The Committee considered the proposal for the statutory rule in June this year and the statutory rule itself at its meeting on 2 July.

As outlined by the Minister, the rule provides for increases in the annual salary of the president and member of the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland. The increase is in line with the 2014 report of the Senior Salaries Review Body and the subsequent decision announced by the UK Government in a written statement in March that judicial salaries should increase by 1% from April this year.

On that basis, the Committee agreed that it was content with the statutory rule and therefore supports the motion.

Last year, a similar statutory rule came before the House to make provision for the 2013 change in salary for the same body. At the time, and I repeat, I expressed the view, which was accepted by the Minister, that the use of the affirmative resolution procedure was "odd" and not a good use of Assembly time, given that the salary increase affects one person and relates to a relatively small amount, and yet other statutory rules deal with changes to legal aid funding covering millions of pounds and they are subject to the negative resolution procedure. So, I am aware that the Department is exploring legislative options to amend the Lands Tribunal and Compensation Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 to remove the requirement to increase salaries of members of the Lands Tribunal by draft affirmative resolution procedure, and I urge the Minister to progress that as soon as possible so that a similar rule does not have to be brought to the Assembly next year for debate. I support the rule.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

No other Members have notified that they wish to speak.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Principal Deputy Speaker, I thank the Committee Chair, as ever. It is always good to record progress made between the Minister of a Department and a Committee. I entirely endorse the points that he made about the rather artificial nature of the debate that we are required to have, and I confirm that my aspiration accords entirely with his: that we will shortly be spared the difficult task of progressing this order annually. With that, I commend to the House what, I hope, will be one of the last such orders.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

There is a danger of agreement breaking out, and the excitement could overtake us all.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the draft Lands Tribunals (Salaries) Order (Northern Ireland) 2014 be approved.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I beg to move

That the Education Bill proceed under the accelerated passage procedure.

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I begin by stating that my request for accelerated passage is a decision that I have not taken lightly, nor is it an attempt to avoid proper scrutiny of the Bill by the Assembly. It is needed as a matter of urgency to meet a very tight timescale to ensure certainty in our education administration system by April 2015.

Indeed, the Bill and its accelerated passage would not have been needed had the Education and Skills Authority (ESA) been the future of our education administration system. However, despite my best efforts and those of others, it was not possible to get agreement. Had it been possible to secure agreement on the Education Bill, the ESA would have been in place for April 2015. In the meantime, while we have been waiting to get agreement on the ESA, local government reform has been steadily progressing and it now provides an inescapable deadline.

It has always been assumed that the establishment of the ESA would have prevented local government reform from having this unintended impact on education administration. As Members are aware, the territorial responsibility of our existing education and library boards (ELBs) is defined in law by reference to council areas. Currently, the reference is to the existing model of 26 councils, and so the ELBs are defined by five groupings of those 26 territories. From 1 April 2015, under the Local Government (Boundaries) Act 2008, our 26-council model will be replaced by the new 11-council one. Our ELBs should change to be compatible with that. Since May 2014, I have been seeking Executive agreement urgently to prepare legislation that will replace the five ELBs and their staff commission with one education authority. However, it was not until the Executive meeting of 9 September that my Executive colleagues reached that agreement. That has left a challenging time frame to ensure that the necessary legislation is in place that will allow me and my Department to ensure that our education system is compatible with local government reform by 1 April 2015.

In this interim period, my Department has worked to complete the draft of this legislation, the Education Bill 2014. The legislation that I propose is minimal, in the interests of securing consensus, and would deliver only structural and technical change. The Bill would simply change the current requirement of the Education and Libraries (NI) Order 1986 for there to be five ELBs into a requirement for there to be one education authority.

The functions and responsibilities of the Education Authority would be the same as those that are undertaken by the ELBs and would include their employer responsibilities. Employer responsibilities within our system would otherwise remain unchanged. The further provisions of the primary legislation will be the absolute minimum necessary.

In concluding, I will set out, as succinctly as I can, the reasons for my request for accelerated passage for the Bill. The reason why accelerated passage is needed is that the Executive, the Assembly and I should do all that is possible to avoid the risk of not having the Education Authority in place by 1 April 2015. Accelerated passage enables the measures necessary to establish the governance of the authority to begin at a point at which the 1 April deadline remains feasible.

Accelerated passage makes it possible to complete the legislation sufficiently in advance of 1 April 2015 for there to be time enough for my Department to apply the Bill’s schemes of transfer to the transfer from the ELBs to the new authority of approximately 40,000 staff, including teaching staff. Accelerated passage makes it possible for my Department to deliver for 1 April 2015 not only the legislation but the administrative minimum that is required to establish the new authority.

The main consequence of accelerated passage not being granted is that it will be impossible for the Education Authority to be in place for 1 April 2015. In that event, the highly negative default will be the unintended continuation of our five ELBs amidst new local government structures. While that scenario continues, the legal basis for our education and library boards’ responsibilities and their governance arrangements will be significantly less secure than was ever intended.

The consequence of accelerated passage not being granted is a scenario in which there are many significant risks. Those risks significantly outweigh the potential for accelerated passage to have any negative consequences, given the transparency of a minimalist six-clause Bill that will ensure the necessary structural and technical changes.

Finally, accelerated passage —

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for giving way. I am trying to assess the issues with accelerated passage. Does the Minister feel that this is a temporary process or temporary legislation that will be overtaken by a Bill that is wider ranging at a later stage? If so, is that one of the reasons for accelerated passage, or does he see this legislation being here for a long time to come?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I do not envisage bringing any further legislation forward during this mandate for the Education Authority or the structure of our educational administration.

The Bill allows for the minimum change required to ensure that our Education Authority is compatible with the new local government structures. It also provides a sturdy platform for change if a future Education Minister believes that is required, if the Executive agree with the Education Minister and if the Assembly agrees on legislation.

Nothing can happen beyond the Bill without the consent of the Assembly at a future date. Given that the necessary time frame does not exist in this mandate, it is not my intention to bring forward any further legislation for our education administration. The Bill gives certainty to our education structures. In the future, if someone wishes to make a change, so be it.

Finally, accelerated passage is a measure that caters for the unique demands of the present situation and the very tight time —

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Will the Minister give way?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am more than happy to give way.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

The Minister is very kind. I refer him to clause 4(3), which states:

"The Department may by order make such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provision as it considers necessary or appropriate in consequence of, or for giving full effect to, any provision made by this Act."

Clause 4(6) states that such an order would be subject to negative resolution, which means that it would not come before the Committee for agreement. So I am asking the Minister —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Member will have an opportunity to put those points as we discuss the purpose of the motion. I wonder why you are interrupting the Minister at this point.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Sorry, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. If we are looking for accelerated passage, that is one of the reasons why we —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

We are about to move into a discussion, and you will have every opportunity to make that point.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

OK. I am sorry.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat. I will come back and answer that point in more detail as the debate goes on, but the key is this: I can commence only those orders that are in connection with the Bill. I cannot go beyond the Bill or bring in by order any changes that should be covered by primary legislation. So when introducing the clause that you mentioned, I can commence only those changes that are commensurate to or in connection with the Bill. I cannot introduce primary legislation through the process that you outlined. It would not be allowed into the Assembly by the Speaker's office, and it would not get past the Executive or, in fact, the Assembly. There is no underhand mechanism. It is a clause that is in much legislation, but it relates only to the powers in each individual piece of legislation. On that point, I bring my opening comments to an end.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

In light of the interventions, I urge Members to stick to the purpose of the discussion, which is accelerated passage. As soon as we discuss that, and if we agree to proceed, there will be a further debate, when we will be able to examine all the details of the Bill. Members should keep their focus on the purpose of this phase of the Bill, which is accelerated passage.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

Let me begin by declaring an interest as a member of the board of governors of Castle Gardens Primary School, Newtownards and Killinchy Primary School. With your permission, I will initially make a few remarks as Chairperson of the Committee for Education before speaking as an individual Member.

On 30 September 2014, in line with Standing Order 42(3), the Minister briefed the Education Committee on accelerated passage for the Education Bill. He said that accelerated passage was sought owing to the timescales associated with aspects of the reform of public administration. The Committee questioned the Minister on the justification for that.

The ongoing changes to local government, agreed by the House as part of RPA, are wide-ranging. From 1 April 2015, we will see changes to district councils, not only to their powers but to the number of councils and their boundaries.

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

As the Minister just said, the existing education and library boards are defined by the old district council boundaries. Indeed, the allocation of places on the boards is also determined in part by the number of district councils in a board's area and the related relative populations of schoolchildren in the maintained and controlled sectors.

The Minister advised the Committee that, without the Bill, the RPA changes could undermine the legal certainty associated with the obligations and responsibilities of the education and library boards. It was further argued that accelerated passage was needed to mitigate that risk, as was pointed out today.

I think that everyone on the Committee understands that the roll-out of RPA will necessitate changes to the education and library boards. I also think, or at least hope, that the last thing that anyone on the Committee wants to do is to introduce further uncertainty into the administration of education.

Setting aside the wider RPA issues, I think it worth mentioning that the existing ELBs and other organisations have been limping along for quite some time. Vacancy controls, in place since 2006, and several hundred voluntary severances have had a substantial impact on their efficiency and operability. Indeed, perhaps a third of non-teaching ELB staff and a larger proportion of senior staff are in temporary positions.

As a member of a number of boards of governors and Chair of the Education Committee, I know that this has been a difficult time for the education and library boards. I know also that many people in those organisations will welcome the early establishment of the proposed Education Authority and the associated stabilisation of staffing arrangements. I understand that, but it should be noted that the Bill will create a very large public sector organisation. The Committee has received only limited information on its anticipated structure, staffing levels and transitional arrangements. Welcome though the information provided so far has been, it is neither sufficient nor satisfactory.

The change proposed in the Bill is limited but, nonetheless, significant. Given the importance of the dissolution of the ELBs and their replacement by the Education Authority, it is unfortunate that it appears that the Committee will not get the opportunity to scrutinise the legislation to the extent that it would have liked. Notwithstanding this, the majority of members of the Committee will, with some reservations, support the motion for accelerated passage. I should indicate that, whether or not the Assembly agrees to accelerated passage, the Committee will expect to receive more information and regular updates on the Minister’s plans for the establishment of the Education Authority. I ask that, in his response today, the Minister assents to this.

There are a number of issues and important principles in the Education Bill. There are also important questions in respect of representative bodies, for example, for the controlled sector. As is usual, I will air the Committee’s views on those subjects during the Second Stage debate that is scheduled for later today.

Speaking as a DUP MLA, the road to reform has been long and fraught. After two aborted Bills, it is disappointing that this Bill should come before us with such limited time to consider it. The work of the Education Committee in forensically examining the clauses and outworkings of the previous two Bills was exemplary, and showed the effectiveness of the Committee system in the scrutiny of legislation. That said, the two previous Bills were unwieldy pieces of legislation that truly merited clause-by-clause examination, particularly given the radical overhaul that they would have given effect to for the whole education system in Northern Ireland.

The Bill for which accelerated passage is being sought is much less radical but nonetheless important. If legislation is not passed, the education system will not be standing at a crossroads but on a cliff edge. Ideally, I would like to have had the opportunity to scrutinise the legislation in Committee. That process has shown itself to be extremely thorough and effective to date. Similarly, I would have liked the Minister to have brought these proposals sooner, as it was clear for some time that the previous Bill was not going to obtain the support necessary. In fact, the proposals in the Bill bear a striking resemblance to the position that the DUP suggested in 2008.

Unfortunately, the realities of the situation do not permit that. We face the reality that the passage of legislation must be accelerated to ensure that there is service delivery come 1 April next year. It is with reluctance, therefore, that I will accede to accelerated passage. That the Bill is to have no formal Committee Stage does not mean that the Committee will be ignoring its outworkings. I sincerely hope that the Minister and his officials will provide the information necessary to facilitate the work that the Committee will carry out. The time constraint will necessitate promptness from the Department, and I ask the Minister to give his undertaking to cooperate fully with the Committee in its endeavours.

It is regrettable that we have an eleventh-hour solution to a matter that has taken almost six years to resolve. It could have been handled much more effectively had the Department not, with ESA, bitten off more than it could chew. There remain some outstanding issues, which I will go into in more detail during the Second Stage; these issues would have benefited from thorough examination in a Committee Stage. While more detailed consideration of any Bill is always the better course, given the perilous predicament that education will be placed in should the Bill not proceed, we understand the reasons for accelerated passage at this stage.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I, too, welcome the Minister bringing forward the relevant legislation to bring our education administration system into line in time for the implementation of RPA on 1 April 2015. Effective and efficient reform of our system has long been sought, so it is fair to say that each and every part of our education system looks forward to this long overdue process of change.

Given the quite considerable time constraints that the Minister and Department face in implementing the proposed changes, Sinn Féin is content that the Bill proceeds with accelerated passage. At the end of September, the Minister briefed the Committee on various aspects of the Bill and took the opportunity to outline the need for accelerated passage. I think that it is fair to suggest that the Committee took on board the rationale presented by the Minister, and I hope that such consensus will be reached again here today. Too often in recent years, political consensus on educational reform has been difficult to achieve. To the detriment of our system and the welfare of our teachers and pupils, the protection of narrow political interests has scuppered much-needed educational reform. To the eyes of many, certain political parties have too often trapped themselves in the straitjacket of zero-sum politics when discussing administrative reform in our education system. They prioritise the narrow needs of a particular interest over the strategic interests of our system as a whole. Indeed, in 2011, the Assembly agreed to the establishment of ESA. However, despite the Minister agreeing to a number of significant compromises, we were still unable to secure political agreement to take the Education Bill forward. There can be no doubt that the delay in reaching agreement on this critical issue is having a detrimental impact on education structures. It must not be allowed to continue.

Given the huge financial constraints being imposed on the Assembly, and specifically on education budgets, the fact that the reform has the potential to save £180 million over the next 10 years should not be cast aside so easily. Not only will the reform deliver much of the savings and efficiencies of the original ESA plans, but it will ensure the effective use of public funds and that the money already invested in preparing for ESA has not been wasted.

The Minister has outlined today the severe implications if accelerated passage were not to be granted and that the 1 April 2015 deadline would, in all probability, be breached. Not only would the system once again bemoan the lack of cohesion and vision from its political representatives in Stormont, but the failure to align our administration structures to that of the review of public administration would place our boards on a precarious legal footing. It is a nightmare scenario that must be avoided. The boards have endeavoured for some years now to shoulder much of the effects of a lack of agreement on ESA. We must not walk away from the table again without agreeing a way forward.

The Minister summed it up well at Committee and again here today when he described the consequence of accelerated passage not being granted as a "scenario of many significant risks". Those risks significantly outweigh the potential for accelerated passage to have any negative consequences given the transparent straightforwardness of a Bill that contains six clauses. I also welcome the commitment from the Minister that this instance does not establish or intend any precedent in bringing forward future legislation. It is a measure for the unique demand of the present situation and the time frame imposed by RPA. In light of such, we are content to support the Minister's request for accelerated passage.

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

I declare an interest as the chair of the board of governors of Grange Primary School. The preamble on the Department's website is still for ESA, but it holds very true for the Education Bill. It states:

"The purpose of education reform is to improve outcomes for all young people in education and to ensure equality of access to quality education provision. It also aims to streamline education administration to ensure that much needed resources can be directed to supporting front line services."

It is a shame that £17 million has been wasted over the years. Think of it simply as this: you could have employed another 140 teachers over the last five years. What a difference that would have made to raising standards.

We would have liked to have the opportunities to scrutinise the Bill in Committee, and we would have expected the impasse with ESA to be recognised earlier and for the Bill to be brought to the House a bit earlier as well. Let us face it: too much money is wasted in five parallel education authorities. I look forward to one authority. We in the SDLP will support the idea of accelerated passage. As the Minister said, this is a platform for potential future reform, but the platform must be fit for purpose and we must all leave from the same platform. Further procrastination in the education sector is not an option. We will support the accelerated passage, but the authority must be representative of all in the education community. I trust that the new authority will help to reduce the bureaucracy in the management of our education system by reducing duplication and streamlining management structures.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I welcome the Bill. All along, the Ulster Unionist Party has wanted to see a suitable ESA Bill that delivers a better education system in a leaner and more economic manner, so we welcome that sort of streamlining. The spin that was being put out about the Executive all agreeing to this is just not right. The public were misled on that matter, and they should receive an apology. Our Minister opposed the accelerated passage of the Bill, and it is our intention today to oppose accelerated passage. It is sad that we seem to have an interim sticking plaster of a Bill. It makes me think that, once again, we have the two main parties doing a deal.

I know that, in the summer, there were all sorts of discussions, compromises and groups going through, but none of that has ever gone to the Committee or to the other parties. It is as if they are frightened of consultation and of actually talking to people. There has been no effort to work with all parties for a consensus, and I think there is no intention to do so. I wonder whether the DUP has been bought again by the promise of a controlled sector body. We do all want to see a controlled sector body, but we want to see a Bill that works for everyone, and that is why it needed proper consultation. I think that is a very good reason for us to oppose accelerated passage today.

I was not involved with the first ESA Bill, but I was very involved with the second ESA Bill. The second ESA Bill was very different from the first. It did not go through a proper consultation process. In fact, I wrote to every single principal and chair of governors in every school, and 88% said that they had not been properly consulted, yet here we are. It is a disgrace. Here we are, rushing again and accelerating a Bill through that is phenomenally important.

I would like to hear from the Minister whom he has spoken to in the schools, the boards and everywhere else, because we would like to know on what basis the Bill has been put together. Sadly, I could not make the Committee meeting when the Minister was there to answer questions, but I have the transcript. In it, he claims that the previous ESA Bill was agreed. It may have only been agreed by the two main parties, but the reason why it fell was because it was not consulted on or taken through the processes with all the other parties beforehand. If it had not been for the Ulster Unionist Party raising the concerns, we would have had that ESA Bill in place. Here we go again.

We were told in the briefing on the Bill that there are no other options and that, for legal reasons, we must accept that the Bill is the only solution, because councils need to have representation on the library boards and, because they have changed, that legal basis no longer exists. Is that really the right reason, or is it just an excuse to get a quick Bill through that still gives the strength to the Department to do what it wants? Did the Department consider reorganising the elections, or, rather, those from councils on the education committees, in a different way so that we did not have to have this one Bill? Did they look at a different system of SL1s and other forms of Committee work and legislation to actually get it in place and get it working so that we do not have this interim or sticking-plaster Bill?

I believe that the Minister does want to improve our education system and works at it. I just disagree about the fact that he never talks to the other parties as to how it is to be done. I sometimes suspect, especially after what happened with the inspection report, that he is being run by Connolly House and we are not actually being treated to the democracy that we all deserve.

With that all in mind, we have to ask ourselves whether we are being forced to accept this relatively simple Education Bill with accelerated passage because it suits them and not the rest of us. Some I spoke to in the education system said that we should really have three boards, which would be more preferable than one board. It would give us some form of comparability and some form of local accountability, yet, because we have had no consultation, no chance for consultation and no Committee Stage, we will not be able to explore that. If you had three boards, you could have one for Belfast and two others to fit the more rural communities. You could work on it through a proper Bill in time to get it into a more efficient system. Comparison, like competition, is an extremely efficient way of ensuring that a government system works properly.

It looks like we are going to get one single board, and that will become another silo — another monolith that is not answerable to anyone except the Department. We were told that the education and library boards were going to be rebooted. That was back at the beginning of the year. We know that the curriculum advisory and support service (CASS) has been reduced and is struggling. We know that teachers in every school are not receiving the support that they should be and that, consequently, the children in those schools are also not receiving the education. That, of course, works into the future. It now seems that, even when accelerated passage is put in place, that same help is going to be delayed further, until April 2015.

Will the Minister clarify whether money will go to the boards in the meantime and in the future so that that is not the case?

There is very little detail in the Bill, which concerns me even further. How will the educational services actually be provided on the ground? When speaking to the Committee, the Minister said that he wanted a body that is accessible to the schools and communities that it serves. If that is the case, will he outline today how that new body will work on the ground so that it is accessible to schools and communities? We do not know the structure and we will not be able to discuss it in the Committee in the detail that we should.

The previous ESA Bill wasted £18 million-plus. We do not know how much this new Bill will cost. Indeed, has it had a good economic viability check? It is claimed that the same Bill has had equality impact screening but if you look at how little is in the Bill and how little we know about it, you see that it really does affect everyone in the community. I feel that it needs proper equality impact screening as it goes along.

My colleague raised the fact of negative resolution on one of the clauses in the Bill. The Minister responded that he could not bring forward primary legislation. That is the very reason that we need the Committee Stage and longer to look at this. We need to know exactly what it can and cannot affect. Certainly, we need to change the fact that it has negative resolution.

I put it to everyone here that we should not accept accelerated passage because there has been no consultation. The Committee needs to know much more about the detail of the Bill and has a duty to the public to scrutinise it. No other options are being shown or considered — we are certainly not even looking at the option of more than one board. There is little detail on the structures and organisations that will work on the ground and we have not looked at the actual effects on the community itself. The Ulster Unionist Party opposes accelerated passage.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I apologise to the Minister for not being here for most of his statement. I was unavoidably detained.

Those of us who have been with this process since 2007 effectively, which includes the Minister himself and, to a certain extent, the current Committee Chair, would almost accept anything at this stage. We have been through an ESA Bill that was split in two, followed by a further ESA Bill. What we are looking at now are the tattered remnants of what was actually a very good Bill, the second ESA Bill, but it is the best that the Minister can hope to achieve through the House at the present time. Somebody mentioned the eleventh-hour nature of it. Frankly, we do everything at the eleventh hour, do we not? That is the way in which this House works — by deadlines.

We have no problem with accelerated passage. That is what this short debate was meant to be about, although I hear an awful lot of detailed stuff coming in already. What is left of what was a good Bill is so simple. I hear Mr Kinahan saying that we do not know enough detail of the Bill. Well, read it. It is only really a couple of pages. The rest of it is all of the tidying-up stuff, repeals and amendments of previous legislation.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Yes, certainly. Go on.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I wonder whether the Member would clarify how, if there is so little detail in it — and I have read it from top to bottom — he can feel happy with accelerated passage when we do not actually know what is coming with it?

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I do not know, frankly, what the Member means about what is coming with it. We can have that discussion at the next Stage. There is plenty of time, certainly this afternoon, for a lot more detail.

In the meantime, as somebody has already said, the education boards are, in the Chairperson's words, limping along. That is being kind to them — they are almost broken. We badly need a new arrangement. There are certainly questions to be asked about it. Will it save £180 million in the next 10 years as was actually promised for ESA? That was an ESA figure: it does not necessarily apply to this. As regards whether there is one board or three, I have an awful feeling that if the Minister had proposed three boards, the Ulster Unionists would now propose one. We just cannot keep on doing business like this.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

Cynical.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I know that I am being cynical, Mr Kinahan, but that is the way that it sounds. There always seems to be opposition to everything. I can find no sensible reason to oppose accelerated passage for the Bill. As I said, those of us who have been with it for seven years have to welcome it. It is a stopgap arrangement. A lot more will come down the track eventually, but I will have more to say about that in the next debate.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

At the outset, I declare an interest as a director of the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education, but I am speaking as a Green Party Member.

The failure to agree the ESA Bill was very much a failure of the Executive. Now the Assembly is being asked to consent to that failure by granting accelerated passage for this Bill, and I cannot support that. It is important that we get the Bill right rather than getting it quickly. It is important that Members have time to consider potential amendments, what has been lost from the ESA Bill and what further could perhaps be salvaged.

I understand that there is concern about the footing of the education and library boards. Whilst I am as keen as anyone else in the House for a long-term solution, whatever it might look like, to give certainty to the education sector, a rushed Bill will only ever be a stopgap and will not provide that certainty. I am not sure whether the Bill, or granting it accelerated passage, would serve the purpose that it purports to serve.

It very much appears that the slimmed-down Bill is what can be and has been agreed between the DUP and Sinn Féin. However, it is not what has been agreed in negotiation with the Assembly. It is right that such an important Bill should go through the full processes. The Chair of the Committee referred to it as an eleventh-hour solution. It is too important an issue to be taken forward in this manner, so for that reason, I oppose accelerated passage.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I am somewhat surprised that so many Members seem willing to go along with whatever the Executive arm of government demands of us. Are we nothing more than a seldom-used rubber stamp for the Executive? Has the Assembly no aspirations to be something more and be the primary legislative body for Northern Ireland? That is what is at stake here. We should grant accelerated passage only in the most extreme circumstances.

On the one hand, we hear from Mr Lunn, who says that we are so ground down by this that we would accept almost anything at this stage. Effectively, we can write the Executive a blank cheque — a blank cheque to an already bankrupt Executive. That is why the House should oppose accelerated passage. We are told by Mr Lunn that it is a relatively short and simple Bill. If it is short and simple, why on earth would we do it by accelerated passage? The two do not sit together.

I have been critical of other parties that brought forward accelerated passage. I have been critical of the UUP bringing the Road Races (Amendment) Bill by accelerated passage. I have been critical of the DUP bringing Bills by accelerated passage when it was clearly unnecessary to do so. I refer Members to the Planning Bill, which Mr Kinahan will have experience of. The Planning Bill was introduced to the House on 6 December 2010. I think that Edwin Poots was the then Minister of the Environment. He did not ask for accelerated passage. That Bill had 248 clauses, seven schedules and 205 pages, and it went to Final Stage before the Assembly was dissolved on 23 March, just over three months later. The Committee worked at that Bill. The Committee held extra meetings to get the Bill through. The Committee worked and engaged with the Department to pass the Bill. I believe that we had a better Bill at the end of it.

So, why are the Minister, the Committee and so many Members ganging up and saying that it is right to do this? Why not let the Bill go through the normal processes? This is a failure because we could not agree on the ESA. I refer Members to OFMDFM's statement in July 2012. It stated that discussions had been successfully concluded and that the Bill would be brought to the next meeting of the Executive in order to commence its passage in the Assembly. It is over two years since those discussions were, supposedly, successfully concluded.

I sat on the Education Committee for over a year with the current Minister and other Members here. Ms Ruane brought the first ESA Bill to Committee, then we had a second one and now we have a carve-up deal cobbled together at the last minute to get us over the line. It has been quite obvious for months, and even years, that you were not going to get your way on the ESA Bill. The Assembly, led by many colleagues in here, was broadly saying no. Then you cobbled together this Bill and are proceeding to bypass the legitimacy of the Assembly in having a scrutinising role. I think that it is absolutely disgraceful. We should not use accelerated passage unless we are absolutely convinced that there are no options and that we need emergency legislation.

The Minister has more than adequate time, and I am quite sure that the Chair of the Committee would be willing to have extra meetings, with the time limit set for the start of April to coincide with the new councils, to work hard on that scrutiny. The Minister would have a better Bill at the end of it. So, why the Assembly has to pick up the mistakes and failures of our Executive is beyond me. Why so many Members have willingly coalesced on that, I have no idea. At times, the Assembly should stand up in robust opposition to the Executive and say, "We are not going to be treated like that. We are not going to be used as a rubber stamp when you mess up and cannot get your act together. If you cannot get your legislation into this Building in time, you pick up the problems." The Assembly should be very strong.

I have to say that I am surprised that so many parties in the Assembly, particularly some of the smaller ones that sometimes count themselves as having a more oppositional role, are going along with this. They should reflect and think about how and why we are granting this procedure. The Bill has some controversy in it. It is time that the Assembly stopped writing blank cheques for the bankrupt Executive and started to stand up to them and robustly defend representative democracy.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.28 pm.

On resuming —

Oral Answers to Questions

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

Questions 10 and 12 have been withdrawn. We will start with listed questions.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

1. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to outline the extent of the inescapable budgetary pressures facing the Executive. (AQO 6792/11-15)

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

14. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel for his assessment of the conclusions reached as part of the recent Executive discussions over financial issues. (AQO 6805/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

With your permission Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to answer questions 1 and 14 together, as they relate to the same issue of budgetary pressures and possible consequences of continued deadlock in the Executive.

As Members will be aware, the Executive agreed the October monitoring resource allocations on 9 October. I updated the Assembly on the outcome of this in my statement yesterday. The June monitoring round agreed resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) reductions of £77·9 million, equating to 2·1%. An additional 2·3% reduction was required to meet the £87 million cost of not implementing welfare reform. This has now been agreed.

Through negotiations with Her Majesty's Treasury, I have secured access to the reserve in 2014-15 of up to £100 million. This has allowed the Executive to make allocations of £125 million to mitigate the worst impact of these reductions. However, this is far from an ideal solution. It is most unfortunate that the intransigence of some in the Executive has enforced the need to call upon the £100 million facility. This will make the 2015-16 Budget considerably more difficult because, in addition to having to cover £114 million of welfare reform savings lost to Treasury, we will now be faced with repaying an additional £100 million.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, can you clarify what the £7·6 million allocated to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) will be used for, with particular reference to equal pay?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

That question would probably have been better put to me yesterday. I will do my best, and, if I leave anything out, I will ensure that the Member is written to and informed fully. A pressure had developed. There were two elements that fed into the pressure of over £7million in the PPS. One was to do with casework pressures, but the larger amount was to do with the resolution of a pay settlement in a case that had been settled in the courts earlier this year or late last year. So, it became a legal and contractual requirement and therefore inescapable, as indeed were many of the other pressures that were addressed in the £125 million allocation. They were not necessarily things that we wanted to do or that fitted in with the Executive's strategy of delivering Programme for Government targets. They were things that, legally, we had to do, in this case as the result of a court judgement.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Would the Minister agree that, in the long term, tackling the issue of a divided society will be as important as reaching a sustainable position on welfare reform?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I do not want to be dismissive of the idea, notion or aspiration of ending a divided society and having a more united, and therefore more prosperous, society in Northern Ireland. I think that that is an aim that all of us share. We all have to continue to ensure that we are making every effort that we can to meet that goal. I suppose that it depends on how the Member would define "long term". He is older than me, so long term might be longer for him than it is for me.

The immediate problem that we have is around our Budget. That is exacerbated and not helped at all by what we are having to repay. I know that the Member agrees with me in this regard. The penalties that we are having to pay — £87 million this year and £114 million next year — are creating a real present and pressing problem. That is what we tried to deal with in the October monitoring round. Whilst I think that it is noble and correct to aim to end the divisions in our society, it is not as immediate and pressing as the issue of welfare reform in the context of this year's Budget. However, that does not mean that Members, including myself, or anybody else should be dismissive of trying to break down barriers that are costing government in Northern Ireland money on an ongoing basis.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The inescapables to which the Minister referred today and yesterday are no doubt partly a result of the fact that the cuts got deeper and deeper the closer you got to the end of this budgetary period.

In his correspondence and communication with the Treasury, how has he pushed the Treasury to change its policy direction? It is clear that the Tories are intent on further cutting our Budget and ensuring that the financial crisis that we face continues, as it looks set to do.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Member is right to identify that our Budget is facing a number of pressures. I have not denied that, do not deny it and will not deny it. I have spoken at length in the House about the pressure that not progressing with welfare reform is having. No one in the House, regardless of their position on the policy of welfare reform, can deny that the pressure is increasing. Last year, it was £13 million; this year, it is £87 million; and, next year, it will be £114 million. That pressure will grow and grow. According to work that DSD has carried out, it is anticipated that in excess of £300 million will come out of our Budget in 2018-19, if we have not progressed with welfare reform legislation by that stage.

There are other pressures. The Member will be aware of pressures in respect of public sector pensions. Departments are having pressures as well, although he is right to point out that many of the inescapable pressures that we have addressed became inescapable because of the stage in the financial year at which we were taking decisions to trim other budgets to help to pay for them. Yes, they were deemed to be inescapable, but the degree to which they became inescapable was exacerbated by our lack of taking a sensible decision, back in June — a decision to take the full 4·4% out at that time, which I recommended but which the Executive did not endorse. The Member is right: there are other pressures. They include the fact that our resource budget has remained fairly flat. It has risen, but, in real terms, it is due to go down by 1·6% next year. That presents a challenge on top of all those other challenges that we face.

I am sure that my party's Members of Parliament will ensure that Northern Ireland's voice is heard in Parliament and that, where there are unnecessary, unfair reductions to our Budget, the Government in Westminster will hear, loudly and clearly, that they are not acceptable. I wish that others would perhaps join us in making that call in the appropriate place.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Can the Minister outline the potential implications if the Executive fail to agree a Budget for 2015-16?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Member is trying to lure me into a scenario that I do not want to contemplate, which is not having a Budget in place for next year. There are two ramifications, one of which is in the short term. The letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the First Minister was shared with Members yesterday, and it was very clear. There is a condition within it that we have to agree a credible plan and a balanced Budget by the end of this month if we wish to access the £100 million facility made available through the national reserve. I think that I have made clear over the last number of days — certainly, yesterday — how necessary that £100 million is to ensuring that we live within our means this year. So, in the first instance, we need to agree a Budget to ensure that we can access that money, and all those hellish, nightmarish scenarios around cuts to public services can be avoided.

In the longer term, I suppose, there is a concern that the deadlock will continue, primarily because of a lack of agreement on welfare reform and the ramifications that that will have for next year's Budget, in penalties and other costs, and we are unable to agree a total Budget. I remain optimistic that we can get a draft Budget out the door, and I will be making every effort in the coming days and weeks to ensure that we meet the deadline of having it agreed by the end of October. Of course, section 59 of the 1998 Act empowers the permanent secretary of my Department to allocate up to 95% of the previous year's Budget to the next year's Budget, but I think that everybody in the House will agree that we do not want to get into a situation in which civil servants are making that sort of decision. We should have the ability and courage to move forward with what will be a very difficult Budget and to take necessary decisions in the coming days and weeks to ensure that we have a balanced budget and a credible plan to move forward on that basis.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister clarify whether he intends to address the residual equal pay issues within the Northern Ireland Civil Service and will that include civil servants who, previously, were with the Northern Ireland Office?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

When I hear "equal pay", I know and the Member will be aware that there are at least two issues. One is for those who are leavers and retirees, and the Member will be aware that, over the last number of months, the Department has settled that case with the union and is actively trying to ensure that those who are entitled gain access to that settlement. That was, of course, changed by the number of years one was out of service, and I think it was the Abdulla case in Birmingham City Council that changed the legal position in respect of that. I cannot remember the precise figure, but my understanding is that the vast majority of cases have been settled and that there is a residue of a number of cases that have not been settled. We will continue to work over the next while to try to make contact with those who are entitled to ensure that they get what they are entitled to.

The other issue that has been raised with me several times in this House is in respect of former employees of the NIO and the police. I think that the House knows my position on this. I want to deal with that issue. I always repeat, at the risk of sounding like a stuck record on this matter, that there is no legal entitlement for those people to have access to the previous equal pay settlement. Notwithstanding that, I think that there is a moral case. I have put a solution to the Executive that I think deals with the matter to address that moral case that I believe is there. Unfortunately, that has not found favour on all sides of the Executive. To be fair, most Ministers, including the Member's party colleague and, indeed, other Ministers, including party colleagues of mine, have contacted me and said that they are content with the solution that I have put forward. Unfortunately, the problem and the blockage on this matter rest with Sinn Féin, which wants a solution that, I believe, does not take cognisance of the fact that there is no legal entitlement. If we were to follow through with that solution, it would be unaffordable to the Executive. Surprise, surprise —

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

The Minister's two minutes are up.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

— Sinn Féin expects us to go off to London and ask for them to give us the money to pay for it.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

2. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to outline his Department's proposals for raising revenue under the current local fiscal arrangements (AQO 6793/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

In Budget 2011-15, the Executive agreed that the levels of domestic and non-domestic regional rates would be increased in line with inflation. For next year’s budget, my Department is working on the assumption that this policy will continue and that the level of the regional rate for the 2015-16 year will increase by the rate of inflation.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Minister, in order to increase our local resources and maintain our front line provisions, can you outline any proposals for targeting local levies that will assist our budgets at this time?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I might be the only person in the House, but I think that I know what the Member is getting at. There seems to be some confusion in different quarters. I suspect that he is talking about the Executive taking on more tax-varying powers that might assist us in some way or another. Again, I think that I have been fairly consistent in coming to the House and saying that I do not have a reflexive, knee-jerk response to it where I think that all tax-varying powers should be ruled out. It is quite the opposite. I think that I have set down very clearly the tests that I think need to be passed on further tax devolution to the Assembly. One is that it needs to be affordable; secondly, it needs to have a very clear social and/or economic benefit to Northern Ireland. On that basis, we have supported and have gained the devolution of air passenger duty for long haul flights in the past because it was affordable and it secured our only direct flight into North America. We continue to pursue, and I remain optimistic that we will get, the power to devolve corporation tax to Northern Ireland. Whilst that is more expensive than air passenger duty for long haul flights, it is, I think, affordable, and it does produce the very clear long-term benefits of increased jobs, and jobs that pay well in excess of the average wage in Northern Ireland.

My Department has undertaken a piece of work on other powers that could be devolved to Northern Ireland, consistent with the commitment made in the economic pact that was agreed with the Prime Minister in June 2013. I hope to have that piece of work and the conclusions contained therein with Executive colleagues in the next number of weeks. Our initial reading of that is that, in having very clearly defined social and economic benefits for Northern Ireland, there are no other or not many taxes available to us or ones that we might take that would have the same transformative effect that corporation tax would have or which would pass that affordability test.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Member and, I am sure, the House will be aware that the small business rate relief scheme, which was introduced a number of years ago and which has been extended twice since, has a shelf life whereby it ends at the end of this financial year. I have initiated and am close to the conclusion of a review that is being carried out by the Northern Ireland Centre for Economic Policy (NICEP) into the merits of the scheme and how it has functioned, and, of course, that will then inform any decision that I might want to make, in the context of next year's Budget, as to whether we extend that scheme any further. That is the only one that there is no doubt or a question mark over. I think that I made it pretty clear that I think that there is merit in some type of scheme moving forward, because, when the scheme was introduced, we were in the middle of the recession, and whilst we can confidently say that we are in recovery now, certain sectors, particularly retail, continue to suffer in particular parts of Northern Ireland. So, there is probably a need, I believe, for some sort of scheme to continue. The complexion and the quantum of that will be something that the work of NICEP will help to inform. Above and beyond that, none of the other rate reliefs will be taken off the table or done away with in the next financial year.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as na freagraí cuimsitheacha. I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answers. Could he provide us with some detail as to what assets he or his Department have identified that could be used to realise revenue?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I do not have a list of all the assets. I am sure that, if I had that list and started to read it out to the Member, I would exceed my two minutes. I would probably take the entirety of the remainder of Question Time, including Health questions.

There is an active asset management strategy in place that has been agreed by the Executive, and it is taken forward primarily by properties division in my Department and in conjunction with OFMDFM. That is identifying, on an ongoing basis, those assets that are no longer required by the public sector and looking at the best option for realising and accruing better benefits for the public sector, and that could involve selling those assets and getting a capital receipt. Sometimes it involves getting planning permission for an asset or a site so that you increase the value of it. It also involves decanting, and my Department has been very active in moving out of some leased estate that we have and going back into some of our own estate or moving into new offices that are better suited to modern work practices. That is saving a considerable amount of money, year on year, but that needs to be continually assessed and looked at on an ongoing basis because opportunities will present themselves.

The Executive have actively pursued realising benefits from assets sales over this Budget period, and the Member will recall that, at the start of this Budget period, it was our capital budget that was under real pressure and we needed to sell assets to get money to invest in infrastructure. That has happened and will continue to happen where and when it is appropriate.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel who will draw up the terms of reference for the independent research on the economic impact of welfare reform. (AQO 6794/11-15)

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

5. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel whether the impact of welfare reform on Northern Ireland study, commissioned by the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA), is an accurate reflection of the current financial and economic pressures facing Northern Ireland. (AQO 6796/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I would like to answer questions 3 and 5 together.

The issue with the report on the impact of welfare reform on Northern Ireland, commissioned by NICVA, is not so much with the report itself but rather with how the information has been interpreted by some parties. Indeed, NICVA recently stated that some £500 million of the much quoted £750 million that will be taken out of Northern Ireland as a result of welfare reform relates to changes that have already taken place or which are outside the control of the Northern Ireland Executive. In addition, the NICVA report focuses only on one side of the equation and takes no account of the potential impact of welfare reform on local labour markets or of the adverse impact of reductions in departmental budgets as a result of non-implementation. In order to provide some much needed clarity on the impact of welfare reform, I have commissioned an independent review, the terms of reference for which have been draw up by my officials and shared with the Department for Social Development.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his answer. Has there been any cross-party agreement on the terms of reference for the research?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

As I pointed out in my initial response, the terms of reference have been drafted by my Department and shared with the Department for Social Development. Whilst I have not got explicit or particular cross-party support for the terms of reference, they touch on a range of subjects that I am sure everyone agrees need to be looked at. They include the policy implications for the Northern Ireland Executive of not maintaining welfare parity; an assessment of the modelling assumptions that currently exist for welfare reform; an assessment of the regional economic impact that the proposed national welfare agenda may have, which includes opportunity costs of forgone public expenditure due to penalties; and the additional consequences that might flow from continuing to deviate from national welfare reform policy, including the implications for IT systems and the delivery of social security payments. Those are not all the things that it will look at, but I am sure that there would not be much dissent from any quarter of the House on whether we should look at those things and get an independent view.

I was before the Finance and Personnel Committee some weeks ago and was pressed by three members of the Member's party to do work like that. I shared with them the fact that it was already my intention to do work like that, because, whilst the Executive had spoken about doing some work, they had not been able to agree to take it forward, so I thought that, to help to inform the situation, I should do it. I took the Committee's comments as an endorsement of that work. We need an independent review that helps to inform the situation better, because there are a lot of figures floating about out there, not least the many figures being thrown out erroneously by members of his party. The figures that I know that are really starting to bite relate to the fact that, every week that passes, £1·6 million of public expenditure that could help people in Northern Ireland is not helping them, because we are paying welfare reform penalties this year. With every month that passes, £7·2 million is lost to the Executive.

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

The Minister's two minutes are up.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

We cannot tolerate that, and it needs to be addressed as quickly as possible.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

The Minister mentioned the figure of £750 million that was bandied about in the NICVA report. Why is that figure much lower now?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I think that NICVA is being unfairly tarnished by that. Work was carried out on NICVA's behalf by people at Sheffield Hallam University. That figure is out there and has been cited by many, so it has become somewhat authoritative. From listening to contributions on the radio, particularly that of Seamus McAleavey from NICVA, it has been very clear, certainly in the last fortnight, that some have taken the full figure of £750 million and thrown it out there as being the gospel truth on what is being lost, when, by NICVA's own admission, £500 million of that has already gone from Northern Ireland's budget. There are multiple reasons for that, and they are very clear. Some have been passed because of changes that took place at Westminster that we have no control over, and some have taken place because of decisions in this House.

I see that a former Minister for Social Development is in the House. Some of the reductions in our overall welfare expenditure are the result of legislation that he passed, or perhaps it was his predecessor who started that legislation. I was the Chair of the Committee during that entire period, but it went through when Mr Attwood was Minister. Issues such as the 1% uplifting of benefits, which was lower than had previously been the case, were voted through the Assembly. In many cases and in those cases in particular, the House voted for them. Some of the parties that oppose the passage of the current welfare reform legislation voted through or certainly did nothing to stop those impacts on welfare in Northern Ireland. Therefore, in some respects, with regard to the figure of £500 million out of £750 million — I am not saying that I accept all the figures — there is accountability on the other side of the House for those reductions.

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

The Minister's two minutes are up.

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

Minister, I note your acknowledgement that the figure of £750 million is over the four-year period and is not actually wrong, but will the terms of reference for this work include the proposals going through Westminster for changes in childcare and the cap on the cost of welfare coming to devolved Administrations? In other words, will it reference not just current but future cuts?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

If we knew what the future cuts will be and had that sort of precise information about the future, perhaps we would do the lottery at the weekend. I assume that the Member is referring to comments made by the Chancellor in the past few weeks. They have to be seen in the context of being pre-election commitments or statements. It will be interesting to see whether they survive after the next election, no matter who is in power. Those things are interesting and show that the future direction of policy on welfare at a macro-UK level will continue to be restraint. That is why we have to get our act together on welfare here in Northern Ireland.

We have already seen swathes of welfare reform legislation come through, many of which are having a difficult impact on people in Northern Ireland. Some came through in the last Assembly mandate, when the Member's party was in charge of the Department for Social Development. Want I want to see from this work is that the current problem that we face, which is causing budgetary difficulties and political difficulties as a consequence of the budgetary problems, is independently reviewed and assessed. There are a lot of figures out there, and people are saying this and that. We need an authoritative independent review that hollows out the particular set of circumstances that we now face. That is the spirit in which the work has been commissioned. It will be carried out independently, and I hope that the figures and conclusions that come from it will be accepted on all sides of the House, because that is the spirit in which they are being offered. It is a genuine attempt to carve a way through the morass of figures because people are clearly somewhat confused about what the truth is.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

It is disappointing that the former Social Development Minister was not so proactive and did not instigate that type of research, meaning that the current Finance Minister has had to step in and do his job for him. How will the Minister avoid the new research becoming an excuse for Sinn Féin and the SDLP further to defer a decision?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Member is somewhat unfair in her criticism of the previous Social Development Minister, who did attempt to get work like this done. In fact, well before the summer, at a much higher level, the First Minister initially suggested that the Executive carry out work like this to do exactly what I said to Mrs Kelly, which is to get a genuine hollowing out of all the problems that we face with the current welfare legislation, the economic and social impacts and the cost to the Northern Ireland Executive of not progressing it. Unfortunately, there was a lack of agreement from Sinn Féin to move forward on that. I thought that there was still considerable merit in doing that work, and that is why I have taken it on. It will be copied to Executive colleagues to help to inform their overall deliberations.

As to the Member's question about this being a cause of further delay, I can assuage her concerns and calm her nerves. This will be a short, sharp piece of work carried out on our behalf. We have gone through a procurement process, and the people are in place and doing the work. I expect that it will take no more than four weeks and that I will have the report in front of me by the middle of November at the latest. It will not run and run so that parties that may wish to procrastinate further can say that they will wait for the outcome; they will have it in their hands within a number of weeks.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel whether the funds intended for the convergence of district rates will be extended beyond a two-year period. (AQO 6795/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I am considering the consultation outcomes before finalising the arrangements for next year's scheme. Our analysis to date suggests that the funding allocated by the Executive will deliver a scheme that will help everybody affected for a longer period than two years.

I intend to announce the full details of the scheme in the next few weeks, once my Department has completed the overall costings to ensure that the scheme stays within the budget set by the Executive of £30 million for rates revenue forgone. That work had to wait until the outcome of the non-domestic revaluation was known and will be completed shortly.

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

Unfortunately, we will not have time for a supplementary question, because that ends the period for listed questions. We will now move on to topical questions. Topical question 1 has been withdrawn.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

T2. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel how many businesses, particularly in North Down, have benefited from the empty premises rate relief scheme, given that he will no doubt be aware of the burden of business rates on business owners in Northern Ireland. (AQT 1602/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Member is right. No matter what town I go to in Northern Ireland, traders and business owners always raise issues about rates.

To answer the Member's specific question, I am very pleased to be able to report that a total of 331 properties across Northern Ireland have benefited since empty premises relief was introduced in April 2012. That means that £1·367 million of rates relief has been allocated to those properties over that period.

We do not have figures by constituency, but 14 properties have benefited in the North Down Borough Council area. That area covers most of the North Down constituency — there is just a little bit of Ards where I live that is not in there, but we will all be one big happy family in a number of months anyway. Therefore, 14 businesses have opened since the inception of the scheme and as a result of my predecessor's initiative.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his detailed answer. Will he assure us that he will continue with the scheme?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Some 331 businesses across Northern Ireland have opened as a result of the scheme. It has not just been small businesses. There was maybe a view at the start that the scheme would very much focus on retail, but it has not just been retail businesses, such as corner shops or other small retail units, that have benefited. Cafes, restaurants and a range of different businesses have benefited. One of the biggest beneficiaries was the Marine Hotel in Ballycastle —

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Hear, hear.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

— which reopened last year using that scheme. I hear a welcome for that from the Back Benches. As Mr Frew will testify, that has breathed a bit of life back into that part of Ballycastle and has helped to rejuvenate the tourism product in that beautiful part of Northern Ireland.

I was able to visit a couple of the recipients of empty premises relief in my own constituency last week. Whilst the policy was about filling vacant spaces in high streets and town centres across Northern Ireland, the two businesses that I visited have, between them, taken on a total of five employees. So, those are new businesses that are filling units that were otherwise vacant, but they are also employing people in businesses and new businesses across Northern Ireland.

It is a policy that is working. If we have a situation in which retail is still suffering and there are still vacant units in our town centres and high streets across Northern Ireland, I will want to seriously look at extending that scheme beyond its life, as it is due to run out at the end of this financial year.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

T3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what type of projects are being funded using financial transactions capital this financial year. (AQT 1603/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Executive have allocated over £38 million of their allocation for financial transactions capital this year. We have a total of between the high 60 millions of pounds and £70 million, given the roll-forward of cash from last year that we were able to take into this year. So, we had around £70 million of financial transactions capital to spend in this year, and we have allocated £38 million of that.

The projects that are receiving that capital are the agrifood loan scheme, the Northern Ireland Science Park, GP and dental practices for some modernisation work that they are carrying out, a range of housing schemes within the Department for Social Development and, of course, the University of Ulster's relocation project to the Member's constituency of North Belfast. So, a range of projects across different Departments are soaking up that £38 million so far.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his answer, and, obviously, I welcome the investment in north Belfast. Is the Minister concerned that some of the FTC available will not be spent?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I am concerned to an extent that, if we have roughly £70 million of FTC this year — we are allowed to carry forward either 5% or 10%, which works out at roughly £5 million — we should be able to underspend this year, not lose it in subsequent years, and roll it into the next financial year. Whatever way you cut it, there is still a sizeable amount of financial transactions capital that is unallocated, and we are nearly halfway through the financial year. Officials in my Department are actively working with officials in other Departments to get them to come up with schemes that could use that money in-year. That work is proving to have mixed results. Some Departments are very active in coming forward with schemes; others have yet to come forward with any.

I continue, frequently, to encourage Ministers to open their mind to the possibilities that FTC creates for bringing forward capital projects that might otherwise not be funded from within their budget. I understand that it is different, it is new and it requires Departments to work proactively with the private sector, which is not necessarily what they are used to doing in the delivery of a project. However, this is the way that an increasing chunk of our capital budget is coming. I think that it will be an increasingly active feature of capital budgets moving forward. As that is the case and as we are looking at FTC comprising around 10% of our overall capital budget next year, Departments will have to think up new ways in which that money can be spent. As I say, we are working on a few projects that could take up the remaining allocations from this year, and I hope that we might be able to report some progress in the remaining aspects of the October monitoring round, including capital allocations, which I will bring to the House in the next number of weeks.

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

T4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel whether the £30 million that has been set aside for rates convergence is ring-fenced or part of the ongoing budgetary discussions. (AQT 1604/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The £30 million has been set aside for rates convergence. I did not get a chance in response to Mr Kinahan, who was cut off in his prime earlier, to knock down some of the myths and erroneous information that were put out by certain quarters of the media last week about the scheme. It was presented, particularly by the BBC, as something that had come out of the blue, as though we did not know that there were going to be issues in the converging of one council with another or, in some cases, the convergence of three councils or, in one instance, of four councils. It was identified a long time ago by the Executive. Mr Rogers's colleague to his right-hand side, from his time as Minister of the Environment, will recall that it was several years ago — I think that it was 2012 — that the Executive first agreed that they would set aside £30 million for convergence, recognising that there would be an impact from convergence on some members of the public and ratepayers. It is money that has been set aside, and it is, in that sense, ring-fenced and will not be affected by any of the issues around the Budget that we continue to negotiate.

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

I thank the Minister for his answer, and, as he said, this was agreed a number of years ago. In the budgetary discussions that are about to take place, is any consideration being given to the possibility that more money might be needed to smooth the transition?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

It has not, although there is a provision in the Local Government Act for a review of the scheme, I think, midway through. In my view, that is more about the functionality of the scheme and whether it is working properly and smoothly and having the effect that we want it to have in easing the convergence of one level of rates with another. Obviously, we will have to consider the totality of issues. Funding will come up in that review, but we will have to consider it in the context that it will be midway through a scheme. The scheme is likely to last three or four years; if we go two years forward, it will be in the middle of a phase in our budgeting where it will be incredibly tight and the availability of more cash for a scheme like that — indeed, for any type of scheme — will be fairly limited.

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

T5. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what the process will be for the £100 million bailout referred to in the letter from the Treasury to OFMDFM, given that there is a condition in it that a Budget for 2015-16 must be agreed by the end of October. (AQT 1605/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I will correct the Member on one point: the letter from the Chancellor was to the First Minister. She is right to point out that there is something that is described as a "condition" in the letter. I do not think the condition that we should agree a draft Budget by the end of this month is a condition; it is something that is consistent. It is a condition in terms of our access to the reserve, but it should not be an onerous condition for the Executive. It is something that we should have done several weeks ago. It is something that I have been pressing for as far back as December last year, when I wrote to Executive colleagues about what I thought would be the ideal Budget process in the lead-up to the next financial year. Unfortunately, that ideal process got overtaken by a lack of movement on issues like welfare reform, which clearly inform next year's Budget. I have been pressing, particularly since the return from the summer break, the need for us to agree not only on a way to deal with the in-year position, which we have done, but on a draft for the 2015-16 Budget so that we can get it out for public consultation and have discussions on agreeing a final Budget towards the end of this year or early next year. That sort of timetable can still apply.

A lot of work has been carried out by my Department to set up the early stages of a draft Budget. There will be headline issues that we will need to discuss, and obviously the repayment of the loan is a factor that will have to be considered in light of discussions on next year's Budget. We would have been working towards the end of this month anyway to get a draft Budget agreed. That allows us to go out to public consultation and will help and inform our deliberations on the final Budget. We hope to have a final Budget in place by the early part of next year. That gives Departments roughly three months to plan for what will be a very difficult Budget next year.

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

What effect will that have on the Programme for Government? If it does not work out, what is his plan B?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I do not plan to fail. As long as the effort that my party colleagues in the Executive and I put in is met by goodwill and similar effort on all sides, we can agree a draft Budget by the end of this month. How next year's Budget impacts on the Programme for Government is not particularly a direct responsibility for me apart from the targets in the Programme for Government that are directly related to the Department of Finance and Personnel. However, as I said on the programme board for the Programme for Government, a mid-term review of the Programme for Government has been carried out. That will see some new targets introduced, and it will see existing targets extended in light of the fact that we have extended our term by one year. The Budget clearly has an impact on that, because how testing you are of the targets that are already in the Budget will be impacted on by the resources that a Department has. If you want to stretch a Department on a particular target, you have to be careful and mindful of the fact that it will need money to achieve those targets. If Departments are going to take hits to their budgets, as many will next year, perhaps those targets, as they are elongated, should not be stretched in a way that makes them more difficult to achieve.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

T6. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel whether he has any information on the future of County Hall in Ballymena, given that the building has seen the removal of DVLA staff, could potentially see the removal of North Eastern Education and Library Board staff and will lose planning division staff because of RPA. (AQT 1606/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I do not.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Would the Minister mind finding out, as it is part of the DFP estate?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I am sorry that I do not have instant recall on every building in the extensive portfolio of properties that my Department is responsible for. However, given that the Member has raised it and that it is an issue for him, for the constituency and for those who work in it, I will correspond with him on the proposed future for County Hall in Ballymena.

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

That concludes topical questions.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

1. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to outline the extent of inescapable budgetary pressures facing his Department and its arm's-length bodies. (AQO 6807/11-15)

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

My Department has faced considerable financial challenges in 2014-15, with £160 million of additional resources estimated to be required to balance the books. Some of these have been addressed through the £80 million of additional funding that we received at the Executive on Thursday, but some £70 million remains to be managed.

The situation does not get any better in 2015-16, with additional pressures in the health and social care system of over £300 million on top of those pressures carried forward from 2014-15. Those will be dealt with through non-recurrent measures. The largest inescapable pressure in this is additional pension costs, estimated to be in the region of £90 million. There are also substantial pressures in 2015-16 in relation to demographic changes, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) drugs, elective care, mental health and learning disability resettlements.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Recently at the Health Committee, officials revealed to me that the trusts were on schedule for a deficit of some £130 million but were recently awarded £60 million by in-year monitoring. Would the Minister accept that when pressures first emerged this time last year and were not addressed by the annual Budget process, difficulties with inefficiencies and growing waiting lists were mounting up? We now also understand that there has been an increase in the number of elective operations cancelled because of staff shortages. Would he accept that there are major problems resulting in the failure to manage the finances of the health service?

In my previous capacity, I regularly met the chairs or chief executives of the trusts. In the first three years, they were somewhat relaxed about their budgetary situation and said that whilst it was challenging, they were going to meet their targets. This year, they are telling me that it is extremely difficult.

The reason for that is not inefficiencies as such; it is this radical change in demand that we first saw coming into the system in autumn 2013. That has remained the situation: we are getting more and more demand, and yet our bottom line in increasing budget is only 2%. That is the pressure that is beginning to tell. Efficient, well-managed trusts are telling me that they are finding it very hard to manage. They believe that it is not inefficiencies; it is simply the sheer number of people presenting for treatment.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answers so far. Given the pressures that the Minister outlined, can he give a rationale for the increasing costs in the administration of the Health and Social Care boards?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

The Health Committee, when I was Chair, looked at the issue of administrative costs in the health and social care system in Northern Ireland. The figure that they came up with was 4·1% on a £4·65 billion budget. That compares very well with health authorities in the rest of the United Kingdom and, indeed, internationally.

Any organisation that is administering such a large amount of money and can keep its admin costs down to that level is relatively efficient. However, even if we were to take a percentage point out of that, which would mean a radical downscaling in admin staff, that would not come anywhere near what we need to achieve to balance the books for this year.

There are radical changes ongoing in the health service; for instance, the Transforming Your Care initiative, which requires highly qualified administrators to carry out that change. So whilst we are dedicated in this incoming year to looking at admin charges, I do not think that that is a silver bullet.

It is clear that the problem is increased demand: 6% as far as the clinical aspect is concerned. I met the Ambulance Service on Friday in Limavady and their stats show a 5% increase in demand for their services, so there is no great science involved here. The difficulty is that as society ages and we become more infirm, demand rises. The result is a huge pressure on budgets. I do not believe that it is inefficiency; I believe that it is simply the effect of demand.

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

Minister, is it not true that it is not just demand? Given your predecessor's acknowledged waste in the health service, the fact that the health service spent £50 million in the last two years on bank staff, a significant proportion of which did not go to front line services, tens of thousands of cancelled appointments every year, and boards' staff numbers swelled by 25% —

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

Question.

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

— and more in the last two years, what action are you taking to audit across the Department, the board and the trusts to ensure that existing budgets are providing best value for money and best outcomes for patients?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

The honourable Member for South Belfast is correct: we must always look for value for money in expending such a huge budget. As my predecessor said just before he left office, "Is every penny being spent absolutely correctly? No, there will always be opportunities for savings". However, remember that he, in his first three years of the CSR, took £490 million in savings out of the system and transferred it to front line care and more important matters in the budget. This year, we have pledged ourselves to £170 million of efficiencies, and that has caused each trust and the board to examine every aspect of expenditure.

There are certainly more efficiencies to be made, but I do not believe that that will solve our difficulty. I am absolutely convinced that it is the sheer numbers coming through the clinics, the GP surgeries and the hospitals that are causing our problem, and the stats show that. It does not take a genius to work out that, if demand continues to rise at GPs — they have confirmed that — at clinics and at hospitals, and there is more out-of-hours demand, we will inevitably require more money to do it. You can achieve only so much in the way of efficiencies before you end up needing more money. "More money" sounds dramatic, but is only something like 2·2% of the entire budget that we are looking for as extra resource and is not a huge amount in the overall scheme of things. It seems a large quantum because you are dealing with Health, which is the biggest-spending Department in the Northern Ireland Executive.

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

Before calling the next Member, I appeal to Members to please be brief in their questions, because long questions generate long answers, meaning that fewer Members have an opportunity for their questions to be answered.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for his assessment of the reported crisis in local cancer services. (AQO 6808/11-15)

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Over the past decade, we have witnessed significant progress in cancer provision in Northern Ireland, which has led to real improvements in outcomes for patients across a wide range of cancers. A recent Europe-wide study shows that Northern Ireland cancer survival rates for lung, breast and prostate are the best in the UK. These improvements have been brought about through investment in cancer services and by a major refocusing on how the service is delivered. We have established cancer targets, instigated extensive reforms and invested in the staff and infrastructure necessary to bring our cancer services up to the standard expected of a modern high-quality health service. We have also been able to provide better access to a wide range of evidence-based treatments, including drugs and radiotherapy.

The improvements have been impressive, but we must not be complacent. They have all been achieved against a background of increasing demand. Since 2009-2010, the number of patients receiving treatment for cancer after an urgent referral has increased by 42·3%, which again emphasises the point that I made earlier. With an ageing population, that figure is likely to increase. It is predicted that, by the age of 75, one in three in Northern Ireland will have cancer.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his answer. On a recent 'Spotlight', consultants raised concerns around cancer research. How does the Minister respond to those concerns? Go raibh maith agat.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I watched that programme twice on the iPlayer just to make certain that I had picked it up correctly. I also met Mr Allister Murphy, who was one of the main, very articulate spokesmen on behalf of cancer sufferers. I met him in my office here at Stormont. Some very strong points were made, but, as he knows, before that programme was made, we had instigated the individual funding request (IFR) review process. We are looking at the whole individual funding request mechanism to see whether the exceptionality test is fit for purpose in the present situation. That is due to report to me at the end of November, so that is how urgently we take the issue. At the moment, that is the best vehicle to deal with the issue rather that instigating other measures.

I do not know what that report will say, but it may deal with many of the issues that the Member has raised. Remember that we, as a society, have increased our spending on drugs by £30 million, and a large percentage of that has been on cancer drugs. The outcomes indicate that we are doing very well, and, most importantly, for the first time in Northern Ireland's history, more people are now living with cancer for five years after diagnosis than have passed away.

It is moving from being a very life-threatening condition to a long-term one. Of course, there are still many who have had the trauma of receiving very bad news indeed, but the movements are in the right direction. I congratulate the staff at the Belfast City Hospital cancer centre and all the clinicians who have done so much to take us to the forefront on these issues. We can do better, but this is a good news story. When I was young, which was a very long time ago, as you know, Mr Brady, 82% of those who had leukaemia in childhood passed away. Now, 82% are alive after five years. We have made real, major changes. Investment in cancer services over the last 10 years has been considerable, including, of course, the opening of the new cancer centre, in which we invested £70 million.

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

The Minister's two minutes are up.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the new cancer unit at Altnagelvin hospital relieve some of the cancer service pressures in Northern Ireland?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Even the Chair of the Health Committee had a small smile on her face when I announced this morning that the radiotherapy unit at Altnagelvin in Londonderry will open on time in 2016. I know that that is of great benefit to Mr Robinson's constituents in Limavady and other areas. Not only is that good news for the north-west, it is good news for Northern Ireland. By 2015, the City Hospital cancer unit will be at full capacity, so Northern Ireland plc will not have sufficient spaces.

It is also good news for the people of the Irish Republic. Cancer sufferers in places such as Donegal, Sligo and Leitrim will no longer be forced to go the whole way to Dublin; they can go to Altnagelvin for their treatment. This is a good example of the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland working together on an issue of common concern. It shows that it is not a one-way process. The Irish Republic is sending patients to us, and we are sending patients to places such as Our Lady's in Crumlin. I welcome this. It is full steam ahead. To be honest, I could not go back to Londonderry having not made that announcement — I think that I would have been hounded out of the city. When I go back this week, I think that it will be a very welcome process. I really look forward to the cutting of the ribbon for this wonderful facility and hope that I am still in office for that.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an méid a dúirt sé go nuige seo. Cuirim fáilte roimhe chuig an chéad Tráth na gCeisteanna seo aige. I thank the Minister for his answers and welcome him to his first Question Time. In light of what has been said, what is his assessment in economic and health terms of formally establishing a cancer centre of excellence here in Northern Ireland?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

As I said earlier, the outstanding work at our centre in Belfast City Hospital has led to huge changes in survival rates. I am glad that he did not ask me to answer in Irish; the only Irish I have is Bord na Móna. Therefore, I will answer entirely in English.

We have achieved so much already using the resources that we have: we have managed to attract from throughout the world some of the top consultants and experts in the field; Queen's University is a world leader in research and development in the field; and we have some top PhD students doing tremendous work. Where we are is not perfect, but it is a long way from where we were before we opened the centre. We are making progress, but we have to be cognisant of the fact that people get terribly bad news, so it is not all plain sailing. Unfortunately, some people have to face the ultimate reality.

I pay tribute to the four Members who contracted cancer and had the courage to go public and tell of their journey: Jimmy Spratt, Paula Bradley, Oliver McMullan from East Antrim and Seán Rogers. They have come forward, explained their journey and shown that there is hope. I hope that we can give them all a 30-year contract, review their situation at the end of that and that they will be with us for many years.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for that. I also congratulate him and welcome him to the post of Health Minister. Do any statistics show a higher incidence of cancer in some parts of Northern Ireland than in others?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I know that MLA McCarthy and several others who represent east Down have indicated their concern about the presence of Sellafield and clusters of cancer that, they believe, have arisen from that installation. I have to say that the statistics do not really bear that out. The MP for South Down, Ms Ritchie, and her predecessor, the late Eddie McGrady, have also asked parliamentary questions about that. The statistics seem to show that the incidence is no different from that in other parts of the United Kingdom or the rest of Northern Ireland, and that it relates to other factors, such as lifestyle choices, with smoking, and so on, being the main determinant of cancer. We watch those statistics with extreme interest, but, as things stand at the moment, we cannot be definitive in that respect.

Of course, there is the underlying geology of places such as south Down, where radon gas is a problem, but that is well known. We do not yet know about man-made influences, but the truth is that the quick hit — the low-hanging fruit — in Northern Ireland to stop cancer in many cases is to stop smoking. We lose about 800 people a year to lung cancer in Northern Ireland. Some 85% to 90% of those are people who were smokers, and many of the rest were exposed to passive smoking. That is how we save lives, and that could be done at minimal expense.

I had a friend in Downpatrick who recently died from lung cancer. I saw what that lady went through in the last six months of her life. She admitted that her heavy smoking had caused that terrible illness. We need to concentrate on that rather than on studies that, frankly, do not show a positive or negative correlation either way.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

3. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for his assessment of the pressures at the Ulster Hospital. (AQO 6809/11-15)

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Since 2011, the Ulster Hospital has seen an increase in emergency department attendances and emergency admissions, again confirming my earlier point. The South Eastern Trust has advised that admission rates in the current year to date represent a 2·7% increase on the same period in 2013-14. There has been an improvement in the trust’s performance against the 12-hour emergency department target for 2013-14, with 1,092 patients waiting longer than 12 hours, which is almost half the equivalent number for 2012-13. Performance against the four-hour target fell slightly to 70·5%, compared with 73·1% in 2012-13.

It is unacceptable to me that anyone should have to wait unduly at A&E. Whilst 12-hour waits have not yet been eliminated, there is evidence that progress is being made. The number of 12-hour waits has reduced significantly, with only 46 people waiting longer than 12 hours in the first four months of the current year, 2014-15. The percentage seen within four hours has also improved, with an average of 76% in the first four months of 2014-15. I am looking to the Health and Social Care Board, working with the trust, to ensure that progress in delivery against those agreed standards continues. I congratulate and thank the staff of the Ulster Hospital for tackling the issue and making solid progress.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for that information. It is very helpful. Minister, can you tell us approximately how many serious adverse incidents (SAIs), as they are referred to, there have been in the Ulster Hospital over the last number of years? Can you give us a commitment that, when you get questions for written answer on the matter, we will get a prompt reply, rather than the Department stalling and thinking up reasons to prevent it answering those questions quickly?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I am aware of concerns expressed by the Member and others representing Strangford and North Down that SAIs are collected at trust level and not by individual hospitals. There is a question for written answer before me at the moment, and I have turned that around immediately. It has ruined several Saturday nights for me having to answer those questions from the Member and many others. I understand where the problem arises, but the difficulty is that, if there are fewer than five serious adverse incidents, you run the risk of revealing the identity and personal circumstances of the individuals concerned.

I must say that I thought the Member raises a valid point. I am going to go back to the officials, because doing it for the South Eastern Trust would indicate that it could be in Downe Hospital, Lagan Valley Hospital or the Ulster Hospital, and that is not the level of information that he expects. That seems to be why he is not getting the specific information that he requires. I am going to have a look at that, because I think that he has made a valid point.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank our new Minister for his very intensive answers today. Can he give us an update on the ongoing capital scheme at the Ulster Hospital, which will, I understand, include a new A&E unit?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I know that the honourable Member for North Down lobbied my predecessor very heavily on that particular issue. He is very much a defender of the Ulster Hospital. I have no doubt that will continue.

Work on the first phase of the latest redevelopment programme is ongoing and will provide a new £115 million generic ward block at the Ulster Hospital. That new ward block is due to be completed in late 2016 and open to patients in early 2017. We will make certain he gets an invite to that opening. It will provide 288 beds, comprising 12 inpatient generic wards, surgical and medical, each with 24 en-suite bedrooms. There will also be day surgery, endoscopy, and four day surgery and three day endoscopy theatres, pharmacy and support services.

The second phase of the redevelopment programme will see the construction of a new £108 million acute services block. Enabling works started in August 2014, with construction due to start on site in autumn 2015 and scheduled to be open to patients in early 2018. The new acute services block will provide 150 beds, including acute observation assessment beds, an acute assessment unit, acute wards, an emergency department, imaging, new emergency parking, and kitchen, dining and support services.

I hope, Mr Dunne, that indicates a huge commitment by the Department to the people of North Down and Strangford. Despite very difficult financial circumstances, the capital budget has ensured that the people of North Down and Strangford are very well catered for at the Ulster Hospital.

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

As a South Down colleague, I welcome the Minister to his first Question Time.

Minister, in terms of the pressures on services at the Ulster Hospital, do you believe that enhanced GP services and opening more beds at Downe Hospital would help to alleviate some of those pressures?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

The honourable Member for South Down has sat with me, when I have been wearing my other hat, in many meetings on that issue. He is aware that the problem at Downe Hospital is not one of resources; the problem is attracting middle-grade doctors to staff the hospital at particular times. All attempts by the South Eastern Trust's personnel department to get experienced doctors to apply and work at Downe Hospital have been largely unsuccessful.

Personally, I am convinced that the information that I am getting on this from the chief executive of the South Eastern Trust is correct. I have been shown just how few people are applying. I know that I got myself into very serious trouble by saying this to a packed public meeting in St Patrick's Grammar School about a year ago, but I am still convinced that, in the absence of middle-grade doctors, we cannot continue to treat patients. Technically, it is illegal. We cannot do it. Therefore, until we solve that problem, we will have to divert patients to the Ulster Hospital, with all the difficulties that causes. It is not a lack of will by the board or the Department to ensure that those staff are attracted.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

4. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for an update on the progress being made on integrated care partnerships. (AQO 6810/11-15)

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Integrated care partnerships (ICPs) work as multi-sector collaborative networks of health and social care providers that come together to respond innovatively to the assessed care needs of local communities. The initial focus of the 17 integrated care partnerships, which were established in September 2013, is on the frail elderly and aspects of long-term conditions, namely, diabetes, stroke care and respiratory conditions.

ICPs have been engaged in reviewing care pathways in their respective local areas and have identified opportunities to enhance service provision for citizens of Northern Ireland. Examples include provision of specialist information to GP practices on care for patients with long-term conditions; increasing provision of structured education programmes for patients with type-2 diabetes; development of an integrated role for third sector organisations in supporting older people in the community; and collaboration with the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service on its approach to handling emergency calls concerning diabetic cases.

I welcome the contribution of all the health and social care providers who are participating in this work to improve the integration of care for patients and service users.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer and wish him all the best in his new job. I hope that he works every bit as hard as his predecessor. If he does, he will have very little time on his hands.

I note that you mentioned the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service. Are you convinced or content that enough work has been done to give the necessary medical information on a patient? Have they enough access to that information when they are called out? A certain level of care is needed for specific conditions that, sometimes, the Ambulance Service is not fully aware of.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

It is a very interesting point that the honourable Member for Lagan Valley has raised and one that, in my five years, two months and six days on the Health Committee, I have not heard mentioned before. I suggest that the best way forward on this is that, if he has specific concerns, he contacts my diary secretary and we meet to discuss the issue.

It is absolutely vital that Ambulance Service staff have the full information available. As I mentioned earlier, those staff are under incredible pressure, with an increase of 5% per annum. However, it is important that, when collecting a patient, they have the full information required to deal with that patient. Remember, those men and women deal with some of the most horrific and difficult circumstances that any of us could ever face. We need to make certain that, in an emergency, they have the full information. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss that with the Member.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire chomh maith. I am not going to ask him to respond about Bord na Móna. [Laughter.] What impact has the failure to implement Transforming Your Care had on the integrated care partnerships?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I think that the honourable Member for Mid Ulster has got it totally wrong. I am committed to Transforming Your Care (TYC), as indeed were the majority of the Assembly, including himself, when it was discussed on numerous occasions.

John Compton's analysis is accurate. It is proving difficult in the present financial situation to deliver all that we want to as quickly as possible. However, Compton said that, if we do not change the way that we do things, by 2020, we will not be able to afford an adequate health service. Far too many people are too far up the ladder of health-care provision in Northern Ireland. We need to give them support so that people are treated at the right level, commensurate with their needs. The partnerships are continuing. It is going to take three to five years to complete, and that remains our ambition. However, the financial pressures that we face today were not evident when TYC was published. We have to be mindful of the potential impact that that could have on the scope and scale of change that may be possible.

We are going through the very difficult transition period between the publication of 'Transforming Your Care' and its final fruition. The difficulty is that, while that is going on, demand continues to rise, and budgets continue to be flatlined or go down in real terms. That is a challenge. I talked this morning about paediatric congenital heart disease being in my top five. This is also in my top five of issues that we are going to have to deal with.

The good news is that I ate, slept and drank Transforming Your Care, because it came in during my time as Chair of the Committee. I have had many meetings with John Compton, Fionnuala McAndrew and other senior staff about it and expect that there will be many more to come. We will continue to give it absolute priority.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

5. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, given the recent proposal in England, is he working towards seven-day patient access to GPs. (AQO 6811/11-15)

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I thank the honourable Member for the question. It is very appropriate and timely.

Currently, all patients across Northern Ireland have access to GPs during working hours, which are defined as 8.00 am to 6.30 pm, five days a week. That is supplemented by access seven days a week to the GP out-of-hours service. I am keen to explore how greater flexibility can be provided for patients to access GP surgeries. I already have written to Dr Tom Black and arranged a meeting with him on 23 October to explore this and other issues. Mr Tom Black, of course, is chair of the BMA's Northern Ireland General Practitioners Committee. However, any final decision would have to take account of the significant workforce and financial implications it would give rise to and the consequential additional pressures it would place on the health service budget.

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

Time for listed questions is up. We now move on to topical questions. Mr Paul Givan is not in his place. I call Mrs Brenda Hale.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

T2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what preparations are being made to deal with the possibility of Ebola cases in Northern Ireland. (AQT 1612/11-15)

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I congratulate the Minister on his well-deserved elevation.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Again, that is a very timely and topical question, and I thank the honourable lady for that.

In order to deal with the potential importation of a case of Ebola disease in Northern Ireland, my officials have been working closely with our counterparts across the rest of the UK and the Republic of Ireland. The Public Health Agency is responsible for protecting the public from communicable diseases in Northern Ireland. The PHA has been coordinating with regional planning, in conjunction with the Department and the five trusts. The planning has included the development of patient care pathways by all trusts; preparation for the management and isolation of suspected cases; the accumulation of appropriate personal protection equipment; and the carrying out of staff training.

In addition, the Chief Medical Officer has sent five letters to the chief executives of the health and social care organisations providing information for all front line clinical staff who may be treating or admitting patients, all infection prevention and control staff, and GPs and practice staff. The letter includes flow charts for use by staff in emergency departments and by staff in primary care for dealing with patients who present with Ebola-like symptoms. The Chief Medical Officer has also written to all schools, universities and further education establishments.

It is important to note that the UK has robust systems in place for infectious disease control, including at airports and ports. Advice by the UK Border Agency has been circulated to all United Kingdom ports. In Northern Ireland, the Public Health Agency, through its health protection service, has communicated with colleagues covering all sea ports and airports in Northern Ireland, informing them of the current situation and directing them to sources of other information. In order to reduce the risk of international spread of the disease and in line with World Health Organization guidance, the affected countries have introduced exit screening at airports to ensure that individuals who are unwell do not board flights.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his very informative answer. Can he estimate how many UK health professionals are overseas caring for Ebola patients?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Yesterday, I had a call from the junior Minister for health in London, and he brought me up to date with the UK-wide situation. I am sure that the Member is aware that an exercise was carried out on Friday in readiness for the potential for Ebola to arrive in the United Kingdom. We believe that there is a small number of UK health workers who are caring for Ebola patients in west Africa. Indeed, the Minister quoted a figure to me yesterday of about 600. That would indicate that between 15 and 20 of those people could be from Northern Ireland. Indeed, given the history of Northern Ireland people in helping those in need in the Third World, it might be more, but that gives you an indication of the numbers that could be involved.

In recognition that some staff may wish to volunteer to work in the affected areas, the UK Chief Medical Officer recently issued advice to health-care workers advising them to register with the UK international emergency medical register. That will enable an appropriate mix of staff to be selected and trained, with arrangements to follow up and monitor them on their return. As I have mentioned, we reckon that there are about 600 front line staff in countries like Sierra Leone, which, being part of the Commonwealth, has strong UK links.

The monitoring of this terrible disease is an absolute priority. It has killed over 4,000 people in west Africa. Whilst the ways of contamination are very specific, we have seen health-care workers, who have returned from Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and other affected areas, becoming infected. Therefore, we have to do absolutely everything to ensure that the condition does not spread; but, remember, the vast majority of people coming from west Africa come through airports in London or Dublin. That is where controls have to be effectively exercised to ensure that, when they move on to Northern Ireland, they have already been screened for the dreadful condition.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

T3. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, following his earlier statement, to outline the purpose of a public consultation if the way forward for children’s heart services has already been decided. (AQT 1613/11-15)

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

The honourable Member for North Belfast has vast experience of the Court Service, and he will understand that, when any consultation is carried out —

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I have never been held in such esteem.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I think that he is a world authority on court services, and he is not a barrister. With any consultation, in order to do things legally, you have to have a period when people can reflect.

I have published on the Department's website this morning the full, unabridged report; it is all there. I have read it, my officials have read it and we believe that what it recommends is the best way forward for very critically ill children. However, there may be some important observation during the consultation; we do not know. Legally, we are duty-bound, but we can, of course, make preparations during the consultation period. Then, if the consultation comes back giving it a full bill of health, we can move on.

I remain open-minded. I have to say, Mr Kelly, that my priority is how we deal with some of the terribly ill children whom I have seen over the last three or four weeks. It has broken my heart to sit in rooms and see how ill those children are. I have no party political baggage in this; I will do what is best for those children. If the best place for those children to be treated is Dublin, so be it. There can be no boundaries or difficulties with that. We owe it to the children. They should go to Birmingham or London if needs be. Equally, there will be people in the Irish Republic with other conditions for whom the best care in is here. That is sensible cooperation between two self-governing jurisdictions.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his answer. Of course, I agree with him that we need the best care for the children involved. However, he will understand that people are worried, because of the transition and the passing over of services, about what services will remain in Belfast from January 2015. Can he explain that?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

A bit like with Transforming Your Care, we will move into a difficult transitional period between the removal of services from Belfast and a greater uptake in Dublin and then, in 18 months' time, the final service provision in Dublin under a memorandum of understanding. That has to be watched extremely carefully. However, remember that, since January 2014, many children from Northern Ireland have already been down to Dublin for congenital heart surgery. As far as we can see, that has generally worked well. Many patients from Dublin have been sent to either Birmingham or London for surgery, so it is an almost international arrangement that we have.

I regard it as absolutely essential to watch carefully to ensure that none of the care of these very vulnerable children is remotely affected for these 18 months. I want to make it clear that Belfast will still be a centre of excellence for cardiology. We are not closing that down. The concern that that might happen was raised during the consultation period. However, I am left with four independent reports that all tell me that the option of Our Lady's in Dublin is the only way forward. I would be negligent to ignore that.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

T4. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, apropos his earlier answer to Mrs Cochrane, to explain his plans to manage the ageing GP workforce, with 25% likely to retire in the next few years. (AQT 1614/11-15)

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

The honourable Member for Strangford asks a very apposite, topical question. I had dinner on Friday night with the leader of a GP surgery in the East Londonderry constituency, and he made exactly the same point. The sad thing is that the GP route is not seen as an attractive one for young local doctors. Many of them want to be consultants. Many of them want to have career progression at the A&E or hospital level. Nothing surprises me now, but I have seen consultants who look like my grandson. They are so young that it is absolutely unbelievable. People are becoming consultants at 30, 33 or 35. That is very attractive, but, meanwhile, GP surgeries tell me that they are having great difficulty attracting the same young doctors to work for them.

What I can tell you is that the Department is carrying out a review of the medical workforce to look at issues like that. Undoubtedly, the shortage of candidates presenting themselves for GP cover will be an absolute priority and something that we will have to deal with at university level. On top of that, of course, many of the potential GPs are not here but on Bondi Beach. We lose 50 trained doctors a year to Australia, where the salary and the conditions are much more attractive. That has a profound impact on the pool of experienced medical graduates as well. The Member is pushing at an open door, and it will have to be dealt with as soon as possible.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

I hope that we can walk through the door together, Minister. Having heard what you have said — I appreciate what you have said — I need to ask you this: what steps will you take to prevent the closures that are likely to happen due to the fact that we do not have GPs?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Whilst I accept that GPs are under incredible pressure and the statistics that they have provided me with show an escalating number of patients, remember that Northern Ireland's population is now 1·826 million. That alone puts pressure on doctors. There is no indication of any closures, but, without doubt, there is an indication of very hard-pressed staff. At hospital level, of course, we have had to curtail hours in places such as Downe and Lagan Valley because we could not get the middle-grade doctors. The Member is right to flag this up. We will have problems here, and that is why the review is so timely. We are looking at an intensive study of our workforce to identify where we will get GPs in the future. As I go round surgeries throughout Northern Ireland, unfortunately I see that many GPs look my age. That is worrying. In surgeries, I would like to see spring chickens rather than old roosters, as it were, who are about to retire and, indeed, have made the point that, if they were given an appropriate package, they would go in the morning. That attitude worries me. When you go to hospitals, you see far more young doctors who are keen to advance their career.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

T5. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety whether he is totally embarrassed by the figures quoted in last night’s ‘Belfast Telegraph’, which stated that hospitals have been forced to cancel 9,778 operations at the last minute. (AQT 1615/11-15)

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

Sorry. I remind the Member that this is Question Time in the Northern Ireland Assembly, not Saturday morning in Hyde Park Corner.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I implore the Minister to find out and go over the reasons for operations not being performed, because they are in the hospital setting.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

The Member will accept that, despite the enormous difficulties of the recession, the previous Minister invested in 500 more full-time nurses and a 15% increase in consultants and that we are about to appoint 61 new health visitors. The doom and gloom that his party and the Members to my right painted have not come true.

I go back to my early point. We have had a very large increase in demand and a finite supply of experienced staff and facilities. Often, that can lead to a situation where a bed is not available. In an emergency you tend to have to use a bed rather than use it for an elective procedure. The other problem, of course, is that we no longer use the route of the private sector to relieve waiting lists. That is a huge concern for me. So many people were expecting to go to places such as the North West clinic and Kingsbridge for surgical procedure, but that is no longer available because of financial constraints. We are in great difficulty, financially, in health. We still need an extra £70 million. I understand that very little is coming through the pipeline in monitoring rounds, so we have difficult decisions to take, and there will be complaints about those decisions and what affects people. Worrying about that is probably what keeps me awake at 1.00 am. If I had an extra £71 million, I would be sleeping very soundly.

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

With enough to do, I can get Mr Ross in for a question.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

T6. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for an update on the Speak Up, Save a Life campaign. (AQT 1616/11-15)

This campaign has included the development and production of two TV adverts; two radio advertisements; outdoor posters, which I am sure that we have all seen; online advertisements; Northern Ireland-branded organ donation leaflets and posters; and, of course, an information website. The initial phase of the media campaign ran from 12 February until 31 March 2014. The second phase of the campaign began on 1 June and will run to the end of this month.

The impact so far has been significant. I know that the honourable Member is taking an interest in this. Since the campaign was launched, there have been 23,148 visits to the website. Before the campaign started, there had been 20,826 new registrants on the organ donor register. That is 598,000 in total. A report that we received on 30 September shows that there have been 2,363 new registrants on the register through the Northern Ireland website. So, this is good news.

What we really hope will happen is that people like me will voluntarily put their name on the register and that we will have sufficient organs to ensure that everyone is covered and that there is no need for any further legislation. This is the commitment of the previous Minister to try to deliver that, and well done to the 2,363 people who have newly registered. They could save somebody's life some day, and they have to be applauded for that.

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

Order. Time is up. Before we return to the debate on accelerated passage, I invite the House to take ease while we change at the Table.

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

Executive Committee Business

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na Comhaltaí as a bheith páirteach sa díospóireacht seo inniu. Aithním, leis an iarratas seo le haghaidh pasáiste luathaithe, go bhfuil gá lena mhíniú ina iomláine agus go bhfuil deis againn é a phlé mar is ceart, sa dóigh is go bhfuil Comhaltaí sásta leis an riachtanas agus lena chinntiú nach iarracht é grinnscrúdú cuí an Tionóil a sheachaint.

I thank Members for their participation in this debate. I recognise that my request for accelerated passage needs to be fully explained and properly debated so that Members are satisfied of its necessity and reassured that this is not an attempt to avoid proper scrutiny by the Assembly.

I trust that Members now understand the importance of accelerated passage to this Education Bill and accept, in the circumstances, the need to ensure that from, 1 April 2015, we have an education administration system that has a secure legal basis in which to operate and deliver high quality education services to our children. So it is right that we take the time we need to debate, challenge and discuss.

I welcome the interest that has been shown on all sides of the House, and I thank those Members who contributed. Many specific points were raised, and I shall address as many of them as possible. I shall, of course, write to Members on any issues that I am unable to cover now.

First, I assure the Chair of the Education Committee that it is my intention to keep the Committee fully informed of the progress on the education authority. I have instructed my officials to provide the Committee with regular updates. At the earliest opportunity, I intend sharing with the Committee the full business case, including the proposed structure of the education authority. I assure the Chair of the Committee that at no stage have I ever thought that the Committee will ignore this Bill, and, in fact, I have no doubt that the Committee will carry out its role to full completeness. As I said, I have instructed my Departmental officials to fully cooperate with the Committee. I also reassure her of a speedy turnaround on Committee questions and requests to me and my Department.

A number of other Members made contributions in relation to the reasons, or lack of reasons, for the accelerated passage of the Bill. I fully understand Members' concerns. It is not a decision that I have taken lightly, and I do not believe that the Assembly should take lightly any decision to approve accelerated passage for any Bill. However, in this case, time has caught up with us for whatever reason. Members can spend their time pointing fingers at each other across the Chamber, at the Executive and at whichever political party it suits you to point your finger at, but there has been a collective failure by all parties in the House to agree to ESA and to bring forward a Bill, or amendments to a Bill, that are acceptable to all Members of the House. Some parties have made it their intention to actively lobby against any ESA Bill in the House.

Mr Kinahan asked me who I have consulted with in relation to the new Bill. Not necessarily in relation to the new Bill, but I have spent the last two years involved in various engagements with political parties, stakeholders, interested parties, individuals and collectives on how we move the education administration forward in this society. There are many different views out there, but what was central to the vast majority of those discussions was that people wanted certainty and wanted to be assured that we would have an administration in place that would steer a steady course and ensure that staff morale is raised and that staff know exactly what their destiny will be and what their roles will be. I believe that this Bill allows for that.

I want to correct a number of assertions made by Mr Kinahan, because I think that it is important, in these matters, for the public record to be correct. First, while the Executive meetings remain confidential, I do not think that I am breaching confidence when I say that, on 25 September, there were no recorded objections to accelerated passage from any member of the Executive. Mr Kinahan also suggests — I accept that he may have been paraphrasing — that I suggested at the Education Committee that there was agreement on ESA. If there was agreement on ESA, I would not be standing here. The ESA Bill would have passed, we would have moved on and we would all be much happier for it. What I did say at the Education Committee, in a response to a question from Mr Lunn, was:

"No. Rightly or wrongly, I believe that we had broad agreement on the proposal in the previous ESA Bill as to how we would construct a new board. It came about from the heads of agreement that were published, I believe, in November 2011."

Maybe I have not checked the minutes properly, but that is the only occasion when I refer to the use of the word "agreement" in relation to ESA. I did not say that ESA was agreed. I said that the proposals in and around how we construct the board were broadly agreed. It is important that the public record has the proper minutes in relation to that matter.

Members raised other concerns about why we have reached this stage and why the Bill has not been approved before now. Mr Kinahan asked why we have one authority instead of three authorities etc. All those matters were widely discussed and debated in my time in the Education Committee and beyond and again by various political parties, interested parties and sectoral support groups, but at no time has anybody come forward with a firm proposal on a three-board model. At no time has anyone come forward with a firm proposal on an alternative model to ESA.

I have brought forward a single authority because I believe that it is the path of least resistance. I believe that it is a path that will allow us to bring certainty to our education system and our education administration, and I believe that no one loses. Most importantly, no one loses in terms of educational delivery. No one loses within the boards, no one loses on services to schools, our pupils do not lose out on support services and the political parties are not seen to lose face over the positions that they hold around administration in education, and they are quite right to hold very different opinions on all those matters.

The proposal that we have before us today is a compromise on everyone's behalf. We are often lambasted in the House for not compromising. The Executive are often lambasted for not compromising. The proposal before us is a compromise. It allows us to move forward with certainty on education. I would much prefer if we were debating it for longer; the Committee Stage is important for any Bill. However, time has caught up with us.

I believe that I have set out sound reasons for seeking accelerated passage. I believe that the length of time that we have debated education over several years has allowed the education bodies to be examined from all angles. This is a structural change to education. The services being delivered by the authority will be the same as the boards'. I have outlined where there are minor changes in terms of the board — the appointment of the chair and the teachers committee. Those are laid out in six simple clauses in relation to the structure of education. The services delivered by the boards will not change in any way under the new Bill.

I recommend that the Assembly accepts accelerated passage in acknowledgement of the fact that I have not brought this proposal forward in any way to dismiss the role of the Assembly and the Committee. That remains vital. However, I believe that the urgency involved in bringing the Bill to reality outweighs the concerns expressed thus far.