Northern Ireland Assembly, 21 October 2014

353 contributions from 52 members. The official report.

Executive Committee Business

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move

That the draft Local Government (Indemnities for Members and Officers) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2014 be approved.

The order is being made under article 33 of the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 2005. Article 33(5) of that order provides that a draft order must be laid down before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly. The Local Government (Indemnities for Members and Officers) Order (Northern Ireland) 2012 came into operation on 27 November 2012. That order provided councils with an explicit power to indemnify their members and officers in respect of personal liabilities incurred in connection with service on behalf of their councils, subject to certain restrictions. The 2012 order also enabled councils to cover the cost of any legal representation that may have been considered necessary. Councils could cover the cost themselves by way of an indemnity or insurance.

With the introduction of the mandatory code of conduct earlier this year and the mechanisms for dealing with alleged breaches of the code, the 2012 order as currently drafted would permit councils to provide an indemnity in relation to procedures in connection with the ethical standards framework, but it would not compel them to recover costs incurred should a member be found to be in breach of the code and should that decision be upheld following appeal.

The 2012 order provides, among other things, for councils to include terms in any indemnity, including any insurance secured for the repayment of sums expended by the council or insurer in any cases in which a member or officer has been convicted of a criminal offence, if the indemnity or insurance policy would otherwise cover the proceedings leading to that finding or conviction. The draft order will extend that requirement to cases in which a councillor has been found to have failed to comply with, or admitted that they have failed to comply with, the Northern Ireland local government code of conduct for councillors.

It is right that councils should be able to provide assistance to their members to defend any allegations made in relation to breaches of the code. However, if those members have been found to have breached the code, it is also right that any council money that is used in such cases is repaid.

I ask the Assembly to approve the draft order.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

The Committee first considered the proposed content of the draft Local Government (Indemnities for Members and Officers) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2014 at its meeting on 19 May 2014, when the Department provided a synopsis of the responses it had received to its consultation.

The Committee noted that the Belfast City Council and Derry and Strabane statutory transition committees supported the Department's proposal to require councils to include terms in any indemnity or insurance that would require the repayment of costs where a person has subsequently been found, or has admitted to being, in breach of the local government code of conduct.

The Committee also noted the Northern Ireland Local Government Association's (NILGA) suggestion that an indemnity should only be withheld where a breach of the code would lead to disqualification, rather than only censure or suspension, or that there should be a cap on the limit of expenditure. However, the Committee was in agreement with the Department's response, which was not to include those suggestions in this subordinate legislation.

The Committee considered the SL1 proposal on 3 July 2014 and was content for the Department to proceed to make the statutory rule. At its meeting on 25 September 2014, the Committee agreed that the draft Local Government (Indemnities for Members and Officers) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2014 should be affirmed by the Assembly.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

This order has been brought forward to protect public funds, and it puts the legislation regarding the provision of indemnities on a par with that available to councils in other jurisdictions.

I thank the Chair of the Committee and the Deputy Chair of the Committee for their support for the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the draft Local Government (Indemnities for Members and Officers) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2014 be approved.

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

We are running a little ahead of the indicative timings, so Members may take their ease for a moment.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to move:

That the Second Stage of the Off-street Parking (Functions of District Councils) Bill [NIA Bill 40/11-16] be agreed.

It might be helpful to Members for me to give a little background to the Bill. In her speech on 31 March 2008 on the reform of public administration, the then Minister of the Environment, Minister Foster, identified 11 roads-related functions of my Department as being suitable for transfer to councils. Those functions were the subject of lengthy and detailed discussions between officials of the Department and local government representatives over a number of months. The outcome was that local government representatives declined to accept many of the functions that had been identified as being suitable for transfer.

An alternative list of five functions was subsequently submitted by local government for my predecessor's consideration. That list included the proposal that councils would become responsible for on- and off-street parking enforcement, and it was agreed to. Those functions were the subject of consultation between April and July 2010 in a Roads (Functions of District Councils) Bill. However, my predecessor subsequently withdrew the Bill from the legislative programme.

In April 2013, the Executive concluded that district councils should become responsible for the provision, ownership and management of off-street car parks, except park-and-ride and park-and-share car parks, which will remain the responsibility of my Department. Councils will also become responsible for the enforcement of parking contraventions in their off-street car parks.

The Off-street Parking (Functions of District Councils) Bill has a single clause that aims to achieve that vision of the Executive. The transfer of off-street car parks to the new councils will be put into effect through transfer schemes provided for by section 122 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 and presently being prepared by my officials. Those stand outside the provisions of the Bill.

Members will have noted that the date for the Bill to come into effect as an Act of the Assembly is 1 April 2015. It is an RPA measure, and its timing is aimed to coincide with the revised funding of district councils from that date. It is also intended to ensure that councils will enjoy the revenue to be gained from the operation of those off-street car parks from that date.

Prior to consultation, my officials gave an oral briefing to the Committee for Regional Development on 4 June on the aims of the Bill. Following consultation, on 8 October, my officials gave a further briefing to the Committee, providing a brief résumé of the 17 responses received. Those were mostly from existing or shadow councils and largely sought clarification on points of detail relating to the outworkings of the proposed transfer rather than the content of the Bill. The respondents were generally content with the Bill's aims, and, in my view, nothing that was raised necessitated amendment to the Bill.

To help to ensure that the Bill will be in operation from 1 April 2015, I wrote to the Chairman of the Committee seeking his cooperation in the Committee's completing its scrutiny of this single-clause Bill within the 30 working days provided for in Standing Order 33(2). I am grateful to the Chairman and members of the Committee for helpfully agreeing to commence their consultation on the Bill in advance of its introduction in order to meet the Bill passage timetable. While the Committee has reserved the right to apply for an extension under Standing Order 33(4), I hope that its scrutiny of the Bill's single clause would not require more than those 30 working days.

That is my overview and presentation of the Second Stage. I will, of course, be listening closely to the contributions from not only the Chair and other members of the Committee but, perhaps, Assembly Members. Hopefully, we can make progress on this Bill.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on off-street car parking. The Committee is generally supportive of the Bill. However, the caveat is that there are some Committee concerns about protecting the car parking spaces in villages when this is transferred to local government. We look forward to receiving the views of the Independent Retail Trade Association on the matter.

The Committee first received a briefing on the Bill on 4 June. It must be said that there were mixed feelings and some concerns, as the Committee did not feel that the Department was providing sufficient clarification at that stage on issues such as the service level agreement, the cost to the councils and the value of the assets being transferred. Committee members raised a number of concerns. The Department agreed to copy the Committee into the consultation responses that were received over the summer recess, and I thank officials for doing so. Those show that the current and shadow councils are supportive of the principle of the handover of the functions. However, they also show that there were a number of areas of concern that required additional clarification from the Department, clarification that I am not entirely sure has or will be provided by the time that the Bill is enacted.

As the Minister indicated, the consultation was completed on 8 August. On 17 August, the Committee received correspondence from the Minister setting out his intention to introduce the Bill and asking the Committee to complete its scrutiny in 30 days. Some members felt that there was a veiled threat in how that was framed because the correspondence did go on to suggest that they could possibly apply for accelerated passage. The Committee was generally supportive of trying to work to achieve that in the 30 days but did not want to be tied to it. The Committee wanted to make sure that the work was done properly so that it went across in a fit-for-purpose state. We assured officials on that occasion that we would do our best. However, the caveat was that whatever papers and clarification we needed from the Department would come in a timely manner. As the Minister indicated, the Committee took its responsibility seriously and, as he outlined, has started its work in opening it up for the consultation process, which shows the supportive nature of the Committee.

On 8 October, the Committee again took evidence from departmental officials. Again, the Committee raised concerns that too many items remained not clarified, such as whether the transfer of functions would be cost neutral; the value of the assets being transferred, which has reduced from £233 million in 2009 to £64 million at March 2013; and enforcement.

It is no exaggeration that the main concern of the Committee, aside from the lack of clarity and which has been relayed by individual members, is that there does not seem to be any protection of the assets. I share that concern with other members. The Committee did suggest that the Department consider an amendment. I note from the Minister's introduction today that it is not minded to put an amendment to the Bill. However, the Committee did suggest that, if the Department did do that, it would make it much easier for us to get that agreed at the outset so we could meet the 30-day deadline for the process as opposed to having to come forward with it at a later stage.

The Committee for Regional Development is not opposed to the principles of the Bill, but, as other Members will no doubt indicate, we have concerns about ensuring that the sale of car parks is not detrimental to local economic development if the spaces are not replaced elsewhere. The Committee will explore that more fully at Committee Stage. At this stage, I indicate general support, in principle, for the Bill.

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

My party, the SDLP, and I welcome and support the transfer of ownership and control of public car parks to the new super-councils in April 2015. The Department for Regional Development has estimated their value to be approximately £46 million and that they will generate revenue of around £8 million per annum. The Bill will see the ownership and maintenance of over 300 car parks, free and charging, being transferred to councils. That can be dealt with efficiently and sensibly at council level and is one important step in creating strong and accountable local government. For a long time, our councils have expressed their desire to exercise some control over parking, and the SDLP welcomes the fact that the Bill will give each of the new super-councils a say. Parking has proved contentious in a number of our town centres, and it is right that the new councils will have due input into the decisions that affect parking in their area going forward. Parking plays an important role in the retail economies of our local towns and cities and for the people who use those facilities day in and day out.

Whilst the SDLP wholly supports the principle of the Bill, it raises a number of matters that require more attention. First, restrictive conditions or otherwise could be imposed on councils by DRD on future use of the car parks. Nearly all the councils and NILGA have raised that issue, and they do not want restrictive conditions being applied by DRD. I think that there were 17 or 18 respondents to the consultation, which the Minister referred to earlier.

Car parking administration and management, the charging system and maintenance and service of pay-and-display machines — again, the sensible and practical solution for that in the short term is to have some transitional arrangements that are based on the DRD protocols and practices until councils finalise future arrangements in that regard.

The next issue is fixed penalty notices and the consequent collection and processing of the fines. DRD has an administrative system or unit in situ that does that work, and over 30 people are employed between offices in Omagh, Coleraine and Belfast.

The hiring of car parking attendants and wardens, or the "red coats", again, has been administered by DRD, and with the new system kicking in in April 2015, it will not be possible for councils to fully take on that responsibility at this stage. The proposed three- or five-year service level agreement to operate car parking, being administered by DRD with councils subsequently deciding on future arrangements, seems the most practical arrangement for the immediate future.

Some council areas have modern, multistorey car parks, and others have substandard facilities. The creation and maintenance of car parks cannot be funded on parking fees alone, so the councils, in future, will have to determine how they can carry out improvement and maintenance of those car parks. The councils have rightly requested condition surveys, which I understand are in the process of being prepared by DRD engineers. Those should be followed by action to ensure that they are all up to the standards that the new councils will expect. That should, of course, include a guarantee that every one of our off-street parking facilities is fully accessible and that they provide adequate mobility parking. If not, action should be undertaken to make sure that that is the case.

I would also welcome a clause in the Bill that specifies that councils will have the power to offer free off-street parking to blue badge holders. The Bill offers an opportunity to improve drastically what can prove a serious obstacle for people with disabilities and mobility problems. Moreover, the Bill will give councils the power to tailor parking charges to their specific situations, but we must avoid causing undue confusion and uncertainty for drivers who will cross the borders between different super-councils. It must not be the case that hard-pressed families are presented with fines because of the lack of a clear and comprehensive system in place. As far as possible, the new super-councils must be encouraged to fashion some consistency. It would be regrettable if a system emerged here similar to the one operating in England, where two towns in close proximity can operate vastly different parking charges.

The SDLP wishes good luck to the Minister and the Bill at this stage. Hopefully, future arrangements can be such that the councils will be satisfied.

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

I call Mr Ross Hussey.

Ross Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

Mr Deputy Speaker, can I have your permission to remain seated?

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

Absolutely.

Ross Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

Thank you very much. I begin by declaring, as a former councillor, that one of the issues that was continually debated in councils was car parking, and councillors continually made it very clear that one of the functions that they wanted devolved to them under the review of public administration was car parking. Whilst I was not entirely happy with the way the review of public administration eventually ended up, we are now in a situation where we are looking at the transfer of car parking to local councils, and I support the Bill as drafted.

Many will express reservations about how councils will act once the powers have been transferred, and there have been discussions about the ownership of the car parks and what councils may or may not do following the transfer of ownership. We have to realise that councils have their own authority and will decide for themselves what they can and cannot do with the assets once they have been transferred. However, I am sure that, should a car park be transferred and should a council decide to use that land for another activity, councillors will realise that they must replace it with another car park. All towns have had surveys about the number of car parking spaces they should have and maintain.

Reference has also been made to the condition of car parks, and some are better than others. I suppose that it would be fair to say that it is like buying a second-hand car. However, car parks will be transferred and will be under the control of councils.

I ask the Minister to consider providing an answer about the liability claims that have been made against DRD in relation to car parks and to provide the most recent figures available. If those cannot be made available today, he could provide them later.

Councils will make different decisions, and I accept the point made by Mr Byrne about charging structures. We see that anyway. For example, Belfast is a more expensive place for parking than Omagh, and, at certain times of the year, councils may wish to change the rates or perhaps have free days coming up to Christmas on Saturdays or whatever. That is a luxury they will have.

I also accept the point that Mr Byrne made about disabilities. I had not thought of it until he made that point. I declare an interest as somebody with a disability. Car parks should provide free car parking spaces for blue badge holders. I strongly believe in that and feel that it should be taken into account during the deliberations.

Overall and over the past years, car parking has been one of those issues over which councils have got quite angry about what can and cannot be done. They want this opportunity to take control of the car parks, and I the Bill is one way of getting that business transferred to them. I support the Bill and look forward to seeing it progress through the House.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I will speak on behalf of the Alliance Party and add our general support to the Off-street Parking (Functions of District Councils) Bill and, indeed, the principle of transferring the functions for car parking to our councils. I welcome the helpful responses that the councils across the region provided to the Committee for Regional Development and the general endorsement of the proposals.

The consultation responses expressed hope that the transfer of responsibility for off-street car parking to councils will provide our local government representatives with the opportunity to manage our off-street car parks in a way that supports local economic development and good community planning policy. We wish them well in that endeavour.

Some concerns and issues about the transfer of functions have been raised by Members, and those were highlighted in the consultation responses. One particular point was that all car parks that come under the legislation should be transferred as part of the Bill without any undue delay. There was also an understanding that certain car parks in Belfast city centre were not originally to be included in the handover, but I believe that there may have been recent movement in that regard. Maybe we could get clarification of that. I know that NILGA, in its consultation response, sought reassurance around the fact that lands required by councils to perform off-street parking functions would be confirmed as a matter of priority and transferred without restriction.

Perhaps the most pertinent issue that has been raised is about the transfer within the Bill being cost-neutral. Indeed, in a statement to the Assembly, the former Environment Minister, Alex Attwood, said:

"functions that are to transfer from central to local government should be fit for purpose, sufficiently funded and cost-neutral to the ratepayer at the point of transfer." — [Official Report, Bound Volume 84, p109, col 1].

That is the standard for which we have to aim with the transfer of responsibility for off-street car parking from the Department for Regional Development to our local councillors. Indeed, the state of repair at point of transfer is another issue that has been raised.

Another issue raised by the NILGA consultation response is that the regulation-making powers will remain the responsibility of the Department, as I understand it. NILGA felt that councils should be provided with the opportunity to be consulted on and to influence any regulations that are being made, amended or revoked in future in relation to off-street car parking. I will be interested to hear the Minister's view on that.

Business bodies, in particular NIIRTA, raised the issue of the positive contribution of many of the parking approaches, for example the £1 for five hours parking tariff. I believe that that is available in around 93 car parks in around 23 towns across Northern Ireland and had been received extremely well by local people and traders. We want to ensure that those creative policies are retained going forward. Maybe the Minister can say something about that as well.

I look forward to working with my Committee colleagues to further examine the Bill at Committee Stage in the near future.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

The Bill, which has been introduced by the Minister for Regional Development, sets forth certain functions that are currently carried out by DRD/Transport NI in relation to off-street car parking. We will see some of these functions transferred to the new councils across Northern Ireland, as agreed by the Northern Ireland Executive. This Bill will see councils enter into service-level agreements with DRD, and these agreements will apply to car parks, equipment and associated car park signage. If councils wish to include enforcement as part of these responsibilities, it must be added to the schedule with the agreement of Transport NI.

Some duties will still be carried out by DRD and Transport NI. The service-level agreement takes effect from 1 April 2015 and remains in force until 31 October, when it can be renegotiated. Until then, DRD plus Transport NI and its agents will provide the service on behalf of the councils, and they will be responsible for engaging parking attendants and enforcing the Civil Provisions Act in relation to off-street car parking in the ownership of the councils. That will apply until this contract runs out and is either extended or goes out to open competition. Transport NI will control staff uniforms, the processing of penalty charge notices, the collection of payments for penalty charge notices and basic maintenance and cleaning of off-street car parks. It will maintain pay-and-display machines and cash collection points and manage and report service-level agreement key performance indicators. Also, it will provide an independent tariff penalty tribunal service, customer services, a clamping and removal service and permit parking schemes. It will control the processing of personal data and claims and the investigation of complaints.

The elements of the councils' responsibilities for managing and operating car parks include the setting of tariffs; reconciliation of off-street car parking income agreement enforcement days; relevant policies; service standards and procedures; enforcing the Criminal Offences Act; and maintaining, cleaning and lighting car parks.

On inspections, attendants who come across and note defects in the car parks will report them to Transport NI within 24 hours. Councils will have to be notified of the defects within one hour of this being reported. DRD and Transport NI will make good to the satisfaction of the councils any damages that may need repaired. On operational specifications, councils will agree a parking enforcement protocol plus a cancellation policy that will be implemented by DRD and Transport NI. Enforcement will be delegated to DRD and Transport NI.

On record management and data protection, DRD, Transport NI and the councils will assume joint data controls for the personal and sensitive personal data that they possess. They will ensure that each organisation will apply a level of interpretation to data that they process and have the responsibility to exercise professional judgement on that data. Each organisation will have significant decision-making tasks in relation to personal data processed. Each organisation will also apply its own technical expertise and professional judgement on how best to store the personal data in a safe and accessible way. That can be best achieved by shared data control among all three.

Charges will be paid to DRD and Transport NI by councils under the service-level agreement to do with cash collection duties, attendants deployed, processing charges and appeals and administration charges.

I move now to the mechanics. DRD and Transport NI will also produce a monthly financial report to councils and meet quarterly to review implementation performance and services provided. Other aspects of the Bill offer resolution of disputes and third-party rights.

I generally support the Bill, but I have some questions. Hopefully, the Minister will address those. When the car parks are handed over, will they be handed over in 100% working and good condition? If not, what moneys will be transferred to the car parks to ensure that they will be up to scratch for the councils when they take over? Will DRD and Transport NI ensure that any information, such as the history of ongoing claims, will be given to the council for their information? I have slight concerns relating to when the car parks are handed over to the councils. Will the councils have the power to sell them off straight away if they want to do so? We need to look at putting something in place that will prevent them doing that. Maybe they should come back to DRD before they are allowed to do that.

I welcome the fact that the councils will be able to set the charges for off-street car parks. That could mean a big difference for struggling town centre businesses, which often find it hard to compete with out-of-town shopping centres and their free car parks. There are a few questions there, Minister, but, in general, I support the Bill.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. We generally support the principles of the Bill. I echo the Chair's concerns and, indeed, those of other Members regarding some issues around the Bill. However, we look forward to receiving it in Committee Stage and taking evidence from stakeholders. I call on the Department to support the Committee in passing the Bill through Committee Stage. I believe that some of the concerns raised by Members can be resolved. I look forward to the Bill passing through Committee.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

The transfer of car parking functions from Department for Regional Development control to local government has been one of the more vexed areas of the review of public administration. There are two main areas of concern surrounding that proposition. One relates to the way in which the Department is conducting itself presently, and the other surrounds concerns that people have about how the new councils may conduct themselves in the future.

I do not intend to dwell on the first area other than to say that the RPA envisaged that car parking — not some car parking or non-profitable car parking — would transfer to local government control. I urge the Department to be true to the spirit of the review of public administration and ensure that all car parking functions are transferred to local government control.

Research has shown that all successful business districts afford adequate parking or park-and-ride facilities to potential users, whether they are travelling into town or city centres to work or to visit shops and spend their money in the local economy. Successful town centres provide car parking. In almost all council areas in Northern Ireland, it is the income generated through successful town and city centre rates that pays for public services such as leisure centres, park management and refuse collection. Where car parking is not sufficient to meet the demand, people simply go elsewhere. It is beyond doubt, therefore, that an ample supply of car parking is an essential ingredient in the economic growth and wealth generation of councils throughout Northern Ireland.

Having been granted control of these facilities by central government, councils would be taking a foolish, short-term view if they took any steps towards disposing of such facilities or changing their usage. Local authorities that would adopt such an approach would be guilty of inflicting a grievous injury on their own economic sustainability and prosperity into the future. Whilst there have been many positive initiatives designed to encourage people to leave their car behind and engage in public transport and alternatives such as cycling — I welcome them — there must also be a recognition that providing car-parking spaces is vital for successful towns and boroughs. I believe that all our public representatives in local government recognise that, regardless of whatever steps we take in this area. In principle, we support the Bill.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to all Members for their contributions and comments at the Second Stage of the Bill. Some general issues and several specific points have been raised, and I will attempt to deal with those. If anything is missed, I will review Hansard and come back in writing to Members.

I am heartened by the broad support for the measure. It has been a very long time coming, and there have been changes over the years. In respect of the latter point made by Mr Moutray, who was advocating that the full range of parking services be devolved ultimately to local government, in principle, I do not object to that. I simply think that we should review, after a suitable period, the success of this measure.

I will move on to contributions from Members. Mr Clarke, the Chairman of the Committee for Regional Development, was generally supportive, and he and the Committee will take important evidence from interested stakeholders, including NILGA. I had the opportunity to meet representatives of NILGA yesterday to examine some of the issues, and I found that helpful.

I am not a fan of accelerated passage generally. I think and hope that there is enough time to have the Bill properly scrutinised. It is the duty of all Committees of the House, particularly, in this case, the Regional Development Committee, to scrutinise the Bill and its impact. In conversation with the Chairman of the Committee, I can assure him that it was not any kind of veiled threat, simply a desire to meet the tight timetable that has been set for us not by the Department but as a consequence of RPA and the changes that are happening from April 2015. I am pleased that the Committee will work with the Department, and my officials will be available to offer insight.

I also welcome the contribution from Mr Byrne. He made an important point that there should be no restrictive conditions as the powers are transferred to the councils. My Executive colleagues and I have every confidence that the new councils will act in the public interest. The theme emerged from several contributions, including that from Mr Easton, of the opportunity that councils could take to sell the family silver, as it were. I have every confidence in colleagues in local government, having served in it for 25 years. I know that they will do the right thing, and any other suggestion is perhaps unhelpful.

One of the principal aims of the reform of public administration is to create stronger and more responsible local government. I think that including restrictive provisions would be contrary to that purpose and could remove a council's ability, potentially, to progress any town centre regeneration proposal for the benefit of local citizens. Many town or city centre car parks have already been identified as key sites in the development of possible regeneration projects for commercial centres. In developing any such town and city centre regeneration proposals, the new councils would also have to be mindful of their responsibilities for ensuring adequate car parking provision.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for giving way on that point. You raised an interesting point when you identified that some of those car parks in Belfast are in strategic locations for regeneration or whatever. If that is the case, Minister, why would your Department not dispose of that as an asset and realise that income as opposed to disposing of it to local government for them to realise the asset?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his point. In Belfast and in other places, car parks owned and managed by the Department continue to play an important role for car parking provision. Of course, we look on an ongoing basis at proposals put to us. When regeneration or redevelopment schemes come forward, it will be the duty of councils to examine the possible benefits and the potential downsides in the loss of car parking spaces and how they could be substituted or provided elsewhere. Those are always issues that have to be considered.

On the point raised by Mr Lyttle, we have had constructive discussions with Belfast City Council. I think that only one car park — the one in the Corporation Street area — will remain not transferred because of the York Street interchange proposal. Council officials understand that and see the logic of that. We have been listening to local government.

I will complete the point about the Department creating a veto for itself by any amendment to the legislation. That would potentially run contrary to the spirit of the reform of public administration because it would leave some veto or retain decision-making in the Department. That clearly is not in the spirit of the changes that we want to see.

Mr Byrne made other points about the existing state of the car parks that are being transferred. I am very satisfied that they are in adequate condition. An example of that or something that helps to confirm that is the relatively low number of claims that were historically or are presently made against the Department for any particular personal injury or any associated claim. It is a very low number, and there are only five live cases across all the Department's car parks. I believe that that confirms the relatively good condition of the car parks. If the new councils maintain the current condition of the car parks, the quantum of expenditure on such public liability claims would have little or no impact on future council rates.

I move to what Mr Hussey said. This is a long-sought-after power. Even in my days in local government, we were looking for additional responsibilities. The measure, in itself, is not particularly earth-shattering, but it is important. It will allow councils the flexibility to bring forward initiatives, such as five hours for a pound, which has been welcomed by so many town centres and traders, including the representatives of NIIRTA, which was referred to earlier. The issue of free car parking for blue badge holders will be a devolved issue, if you like, for councils to determine. They will also be able to determine their own decisions on other special initiatives, such as pre-Christmas initiatives.

I welcome the fact that there has been so much general support. Mr Easton gave us a fairly comprehensive review of the Bill and what it seeks to do. I believe that we have a responsibility to try to meet the deadlines that are ahead of us, and I was pleased that there was widespread political support.

Mr Lyttle quoted Alex Attwood, the then Minister of the Environment, stating that functions transferring to councils would be:

"fit for purpose, sufficiently funded and cost-neutral to the ratepayer at the point of transfer." — [Official Report, Bound Volume 84, p109, col 1].

The Executive did not agree that assets would be brought up to an improved standard prior to transfer, nor has my Department been funded to improve the condition of assets that would be provided to councils, but I believe that the assets that we are transferring are indeed fit for purpose.

I welcome the contributions of Members, look forward to watching the Committee Stage with interest and then, when it is brought back to the Floor of the Assembly, continuing to engage with Members as the Bill progresses through its various stages.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Off-street Parking (Functions of District Councils) Bill [NIA Bill 40/11-16] be agreed.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I call the Minister of Education, Mr John O'Dowd, to move the Consideration Stage of the Education Bill.

Moved. — [Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Education).]

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are four groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn.

The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8, which deal with functions and duties of the authority and technical matters. The second debate will be on amendment Nos 6 and 7, which deal with the departmental grant aid to sectoral bodies. The third debate will be on amendment Nos 9 to 20, which deal with membership, officers and committees. The fourth debate will be on amendment Nos 21 and 22, which deal with pay policy statements and the living wage.

Valid petitions of concern have been tabled in relation to amendment Nos 1, 2, 5, 11 to 15, 21 and 22. Each will therefore require a cross-community vote.

I remind Members who intend to speak that, during the debates on the four groups of amendments, they should address all the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on each group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8. These amendments relate to functions and duties of the authority and technical matters.

Members should note that amendment Nos 1 and 5 are mutually exclusive. Valid petitions of concern have been received in relation to amendment Nos 1, 2 and 5, and, therefore, will require cross-party support.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move amendment No 1:In page 1, line 11, at end insert

"(2A) It shall be a duty of the Authority, when exercising its functions, to encourage, facilitate and promote integrated education.".

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In page 1, line 11, at end insert

"(2B) It shall be a duty of the Authority, when exercising its functions, to encourage, facilitate and promote Irish-medium education.".— [Mr Lunn.]

No 3: In page 1, line 11, at end insert

"(2C) It shall be a duty of the Authority, when exercising its functions, to encourage, facilitate and promote shared education.".— [Mr McCallister.]

No 4: In page 1, line 11, at end insert

"(2D) It shall be a duty of the Authority, when exercising its functions, to encourage, facilitate and promote the community use of school premises.".— [Mr McCallister.]

No 5: In page 1, line 11, at end insert

"(2E) It shall be the duty of the Education Authority to encourage and facilitate the development of integrated education, that is to say the education together at school of Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils.".— [Mr Agnew.]

No 8: In clause 4, page 2, line 15, leave out "negative resolution" and insert "affirmative resolution".— [Mr Kinahan.]

I will say at the outset that, while this should have been a very good day for the education system, I have a feeling that we are not going to come out of it with much credit.

Amendment No 1 is a very minor adjustment to what already exists in legislation. The words "encourage and facilitate" exist in the 1989 Order and apply to the Department and the boards, so, naturally, they would have applied to the new authority and transferred from the boards. The purpose of this amendment is to introduce the word "promote". The Department has had an obligation in this respect for many years. I think that it is fair to say that, down the years, it has not covered itself in glory in the application and honouring of that obligation. We think that it is worthwhile to introduce the word "promote", which has a slightly stronger meaning and goes beyond "facilitate and encourage". According to the dictionary, promote means "to support and actively encourage", so it is not an earth-shattering amendment, and nor is amendment No 2 as, frankly, the two run in parallel. However, it already seems that it is too much for the DUP because we have petitions of concern for both these amendments.

The Drumragh judgement comes into this as well. Judge Treacy has given clear direction to reinforce this obligation once again. He has pointed out that the needs model in the area-based planning system is not really fit for purpose and does not allow for any growth in the integrated sector. However, so far, the Department has not accepted this. I will speak just about the integrated sector for now. Polls and any expression of public opinion that I have seen since I joined this place have indicated that there is a clear demand for more integration of our schoolchildren in integrated schools. Judge Treacy has defined integrated schools as schools in which Protestants and Catholics are educated together but states that a school with a Catholic maintained ethos or a controlled ethos does not really qualify as an integrated school as it has to have a non-partisan board and so on.

These two amendments are a fairly innocent attempt to move things on a wee bit, remind the Department and take the opportunity of the new set-up across the boards and the new authority. It is an opportunity to tidy up a few things. We had hoped that it would find approval across the House. Maybe I am naive. Maybe I am not old enough yet, but I did not expect this level of opposition from the DUP, given that its party leader has constantly espoused his support for integrated education. He says that it was the subject of the first speech that he ever made to a DUP gathering away back in his youth and that he has continued with it ever since. I do not know what the Ulster Unionists are going to do on this, but Mr Kinahan and some of his party colleagues are on record as being supportive of integrated education. Where on earth is the harm in trying to give it another push on the back of the Drumragh judgement? It does not really matter because the dead hand of the DUP has descended, and the veto has been put in place. There is really no point in pursuing it, but we and other people will pursue it.

I am not going to repeat everything that I have said about integrated education in respect of the Irish medium, but the same principles apply. It has the same protection in previous legislation, and we have the same result; there is a petition of concern on that as well.

These two sectors deserve special attention. That has been recognised in our legislation for well over 20 years. The problem is that they have not received the special attention or impetus and promotion that they were supposed to get. I sometimes run out of things to say, but what is the objection to integrated education? What is the objection to putting our children together at an early age, with all the societal benefits that may flow from that? Yet we have this constant objection and, frankly, I wonder what some people are afraid of here.

The DUP told me yesterday that it now favours a single school system. To be frank, I am not too sure what that means. However, I have also heard it from the Ulster Unionists at times. They will have the opportunity today to explain what it means, but it seems to me to mean no more sectors. There will not be an integrated sector or an Irish-medium sector. There will also not be a Catholic maintained sector under the DUP's ambition. This is pie-in-the-sky nonsense. It is just not going to happen. If it were ever brought forward, they would suffer the same fate as we are today, because there would probably still be petitions of concern. It is totally unrealistic.

What is going on here is that the DUP just cannot abide the thought of any advancement, particularly in the Irish-medium sector. That is what it boils down to, and they are using the fact that they are applying their veto to integrated education as a smokescreen — a fig leaf — to cover their dislike for what they see as some sort of an attack on their culture or whatever. They just want nothing to do with what we will call those pesky do-gooders in the integrated sector and those pesky republican warriors in the Irish-medium sector. They want nothing to do with it. It is so backward-looking that it is pathetic.

The Irish-medium people, quite rightly, want to promote their ancient language. They want to sustain, maintain and promote it. Where on earth is the harm in that? It has been recognised in law that, if they want to have their own schools and be educated in the Irish language, they have a perfect right to do so, but, apparently, we are not going to extend this regulation in a simple way.

In amendment No 3, Mr McCallister wants to apply the same duty, including to "promote", to the concept of sharing in education, and we are not going to be as paranoiac about this as the DUP. In principle, we have no problem with the sharing concept. If done for the right reasons, it is perfectly valid. It enables schools to operate the full curriculum and the whole entitlement framework. If you have not got enough pupils in your A-level classes, you can combine with another school. That is the basic reason for it. We may have some reservations about the societal benefits of it. Certainly it would, perhaps, be more long term than full integration, but we are prepared to accept Mr McCallister's amendment.

Amendment No 4 provides for the community use of facilities. This goes back quite a long way. Mr McNarry is not here so far today, but, somewhere in the system, he still has a private Member's Bill asking for exactly that: extended use by communities of school facilities, which we think is an excellent idea. His amendment No 4 — sorry, Mr McCallister's amendment, not Mr McNarry's — states:

"It shall be a duty of the Authority, when exercising its functions, to encourage, facilitate and promote the community use of school premises".

That is fine.

Even the DUP did not manage to find fault with that.

Amendment No 5 from the Green Party — Stephen is here — is a limited version of what we are trying to achieve.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. I just want to say from the outset that we support the Alliance amendment. We accept that it goes a little further than what we have proposed. Should the Alliance amendment fall, we will support ours, but given that, I think, we are trying to achieve the same thing, I accept that the Alliance amendment offers that bit more.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for that support. His amendment refers to the "education together" of Protestants and Catholics in the same school. That is lifted from the 1989 Order as well as the Drumragh judgement. The Drumragh judgement makes it clear that the fact that Protestants and Catholics are being educated in the same school does not make it an integrated school. It needs to go further than that, and it needs to have a board that has the ethos of promoting integration, societal sharing and bringing children together. What on earth is wrong with that? I look forward to hearing from the DUP on this, because yet another petition of concern has been tabled against that amendment.

Amendment No 8 refers to making orders relating to the Bill subject to positive rather than negative resolution. That is an ongoing discussion and we do not really have any problem with that, so I dare say that we will support it.

I will finish on this group. The whole purpose of our being here to pass legislation, debate and try to do what is best for our children in this situation is being trampled on — it will happen again as the day goes on — by petitions of concern on relatively simple matters where people appear to have suddenly changed their tune. They will be glad to know that I am looking at an article in the 'Irish News' today about CCMS's attitude to all this. They have effectively said that they want to see an end to the integrated sector and to its promotion. What are they afraid of? This is to do with parental choice and parental demand.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

In a moment.

We are perfectly happy to support parental choice for parents who want to send their child to any school in our education system. We think that there is room for Catholic-maintained faith schools or Protestant faith schools, of which there are some. We think that there is ample room for the controlled sector, obviously, as it is huge. It deserves the support that the Bill will give it through a controlled sector body, but what a pity it is that there is such suspicion and paranoia coming from this side of the House when we discuss such matters.

I give way to Mr McCausland.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Does the Member accept that, when he says that these are relatively simple matters, they are also relatively sensitive matters? The word "simple" when referring to the complex architecture of education in Northern Ireland is somewhat misleading. Does he also accept that many of us believe that there should not be privilege and advantage for one sector over another, which is the point that this would provide? Other sectors such as the controlled sector should be promoted. There should be equality.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank Mr McCausland for that. I have had this discussion with certain DUP members, and their solution appears to be that all sectors deserve the same wording and that all sectors should be promoted, encouraged and facilitated. There is a reason — it is pretty obvious to everybody else, frankly — why the Irish-medium sector and the integrated sector have had that special encouragement and protection for 25 years: they were starting from scratch. They needed support, and there has been an upsurge of support in the community for them. However, it needs the Department and this authority to step up to the mark and continue to provide that support.

When I use the word "simple", I use it with regard to including the word "promotion". I remind the House that, on 23 November 2010, the House voted to support the promotion of integrated education. The DUP did not vote against it; it implicitly supported it. What has changed? This seems to be a matter of convenience from one debate to the next. Now, it is a single education system; now, it says, "We will give integrated and Irish-medium education absolutely nothing". I look forward to hearing from DUP representatives on that because I think that it is absolutely disgraceful. I will leave it at that.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

As the House is aware, the Bill was subject to the accelerated passage procedure and thus did not have a Committee Stage. With your indulgence, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, at the outset I want to make a few remarks on group 1 as Chairperson of the Committee for Education. I would also like to declare an interest as a member of the board of governors of Killinchey Primary School and Castle Gardens Primary School in Newtownards.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way? Could I ask her to move the microphone closer? Sorry.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

You do not want to miss a thing.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I really want to hear what you are saying.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I want to begin by talking about amendment Nos 1, 2 and 5, which deal with the promotion of integrated and Irish-medium education. When the Committee considered these matters as part of the previous Education Bill, you may not be surprised to learn, it could not come to an agreement. Some Members strongly felt that a level playing field for the different education sectors was required. Those Members argued against the promotion of one sector over another. Others disagreed, highlighting the need for proportionate additional support for what was termed a "culturally important sector" — Irish-medium education — and for what might be described as a socially important sector — integrated education.

Whatever view may be taken about the above, Members may also wish to consider the existing obligations on the Department to facilitate and encourage Irish-medium and integrated education. Some argue that what is known as the Drumragh judgement has provided some clarity in this regard; others might point to the recently published primary school area plans, which appear to show some caution on the part of the education and library boards, reflecting perhaps something less than clarity in respect of the treatment of these sectors.

In the absence of a Committee Stage, the Committee has not taken a formal view on these matters. I will, however, say more, as we move through, as a DUP MLA.

I also want to touch briefly on amendment No 3, which refers to the promotion of shared education. As you are aware, the Committee for Education is undertaking an inquiry into this and integrated education. The Committee has just commenced evidence taking and has not undertaken significant deliberations as yet. I should point out, however, that, as part of its consideration of the previous Education Bill, the Committee did some work on shared education.

The Committee felt that it certainly supported the principle of sharing resources and improving collaboration between schools where that enhances the effective management and efficient provision of education. I think that it is fair to summarise the Committee's view at that time that shared education was about the betterment of the educational experience for pupils. In that spirit, Members were certainly supportive of its promotion. However, the Committee also felt that, in the absence of a statutory definition and greater policy clarity, it was inappropriate to propose amendments like amendment No 3 to the previous Education Bill. Indeed, it was the need for policy clarity that prompted the Committee's current inquiry. The proponent of amendment No 3 might well argue that the policy position has developed in the 18 months since the last Bill. It might even be argued that this is an opportune moment to advance a popular grass-roots education policy like shared education. I have to say that the Committee has not taken a formal view on this at this time. Again, I will say a little more on that when I speak as an individual Member.

I turn to amendment No 4, which is about the community use of school premises. Although, again, the Committee has not taken a formal view on the need for a statutory duty in this regard, Members were certainly supportive of enhanced community participation with schools. Indeed, the Committee, only a few months ago, scrutinised and generally endorsed the Department's guidance on enhancing community access to school buildings.

I will now speak as a DUP MLA. As you are aware, we have tabled a number of petitions of concern, and we argue that they are essential to protect the integrity of the Bill. Education Bills have a history of being picked over by sectoral interests, and this Bill is about the replacement of five education and library boards with a single authority. This is not ESA by the back door; this Bill is finely balanced. We feel that the amendments that we have petitioned against are either unnecessary, as provisions already exist in law, or overstep and unbalance the Bill. This is about the settlement that was established under the 1986 Order, and it is not against integrated education or any other sector, as Mr Lunn said. As Mr Lunn also said, the DUP wants to see all children educated together. We see shared education as one step towards that, but we do not believe in artificially forcing that process either.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

The DUP objects to amendment Nos 1, 2 and 5. Quite simply, the legislation already exists with regard to integrated education in article 64 of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 —

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

If you just let me finish this point.

— and article 89 of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. Those provisions are not being removed by this Bill. The amendments are therefore unnecessary. There is little point to rehashing the provisions of other legislation. The Department already funds NICIE and CnaG to promote the interests of the integrated education and Irish-medium sectors respectively. I am sure that a further body being required to promote those interests is not needed and would, in fact, be confusing and unhelpful in an already overcrowded system.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Chair for giving way. She used the word "forcing": where is the force? Perhaps she could explain to me what leads her to think that there is any compulsion or force involved. This is merely a mild strengthening of a duty that is already there and has been there all those years. You talk about another body being introduced; no other body is being introduced. In fact, we are going from five bodies to one. We just want to put into the Bill what is effectively already there, with just a tiny tweak, and it is spooking the DUP.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his intervention. Perhaps he would prefer that I use the phrase "artificially incentivising" rather than "forcing" in respect of that. We believe that it is unnecessary.

We are concerned to a degree about amendment No 8, which talks about using the affirmative resolution procedure. We think that that may cause unnecessary delay, given that we are looking for essential provisions to be made. The amendment would mean that any supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provision that was needed or was appropriate to make the legislation effective would need to be laid before the Assembly after passing through the Education Committee. That could add a number of weeks to the process, so we have a concern about that. In saying that, we are willing to work with anyone to refine that, and, certainly, if the Ulster Unionist Party is perhaps inclined to look at how it wishes to proceed with that, we will discuss it.

The DUP is more than content to support amendment Nos 3 and 4, tabled by Mr McCallister. It is stated DUP policy that we support shared education. Our party leader has led the way on shared education. As I outlined earlier, the Education Committee has not yet reached a formal view and will be looking at this further. If the Member is still inclined to proceed with his amendment, some refinement of it may be needed at Further Consideration Stage. We will reserve our position in regard to that. Since my party leader has brought the issue to the fore, there has been a great deal of debate about the interpretation of the phrase, usually to suit specific sectoral interests. A common definition definitely needs to be finalised. While we know what we would like that to be, I would like to see it put on a statutory footing.

As a party, we are happy to support the community use of school premises, as proposed by Mr McCallister. Indeed, I recall that, a number of years ago, Mr McNarry proposed to bring forward a private Member's Bill in respect of that issue. At that time, we were happy to support him as well. The 1989 Order created an aspiration for schools to be used in that way. There is little doubt that a large number of schools have opened up their premises for such use. I certainly see that across my constituency. Schools have valuable assets that are grant-funded from the public purse. At the same time, we have councils that are being pressurised into providing buildings and facilities. That really amounts to a duplication of provision. This also assists schools by providing additional income. How it is managed will require some focus. I am pleased to note that Mr McCallister has proposed an amendment creating a standing committee for the new authority to look at that. Although that amendment will be debated later, we are content to support it.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Like the Member who spoke previously and Mr Lunn before her, I welcome the opportunity to speak today on this. I take on board Trevor Lunn's comments about the potential that today had to be a good day for education, but it may be a missed opportunity. I do not want to say that I agree with him entirely, but I think that commentators and education sectors out there will look on the actions of the DUP here today as being yet another missed opportunity to put out the hand of friendship to different sectors and show goodwill and reciprocation —

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go ahead.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Does the Member agree that it is somewhat presumptuous of him to express a view and then attribute it to education sectors? There might be different views in different sectors. It is just a possibility that the Member might want to consider.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Member for the intervention, rather pointless as it was. I said "I think"; I was expressing my opinion. I think that people will look critically at the behaviour of the DUP today and its use of petitions of concern. I was surprised that the Chair was able to say with a straight face that they were protecting the integrity of the Bill.

As Mr Lunn pointed out, we are seeing a somewhat irrational — I think that the word was "pathetic" — objection to Irish-medium education and integrated education. The DUP says that legislation already provides for the protection and promotion of integrated and Irish-medium education, but it also does for controlled. Education and library boards and the authority have a duty to provide quality education in controlled schools. As we are going to outline today, Sinn Féin, through the Minister originally and then the ESA Bill, which had funding for a controlled body that continues to do various pieces of work, is willing to show goodwill and say, "This is something we're ready to back", but, once again, the DUP seems totally unable to do that. Where is the reciprocated goodwill?

Sinn Féin is happy to support amendment Nos 1, 5 and 2, and we will oppose amendment Nos 3, 4 and 8. I will outline the reasons. Amendment No 3 places a duty on the authority to:

"encourage, facilitate and promote shared education."

As the Minister may outline later today, we do not have a legally defined and agreed definition of "shared education", so it will be somewhat difficult. I am sure that the Member will touch on that later. It is something that we will be able to return to in time. A further amendment concerns the community use of schools. This is an example of where good intentions — we touched on this yesterday — do not necessarily make good policy. The authority will have no function in relation to many of the maintained, integrated or Irish-medium schools, so I am not sure about the extent to which it would be able to do that.

Finally, on the idea of negative resolution, I agree with the Chair: it is customary practice for the Bill to do that. It is not giving carte blanche to tinker at will with the legislation; it is just technical. I am sure that the Minister will outline later that, if subordinate legislation was to come forward, it has to come to the Committee. Any Committee member or any Member can bring a prayer of annulment against anything that comes. That is my take on it, anyway.

We will support amendment Nos 1, 5 and 2, and we will oppose amendment Nos 3, 4 and 8.

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

I reiterate that the wasting of £17 million of public money on the Education and Skills Authority Bill was completely unacceptable. What do we want out of education? We want a good education system for all our children. The Minister has talked frequently about a strategic direction for this Bill, and that is what we need. We need our young people to have the right skills so that we can set our economy in fast-forward mode.

There are many things that we need to fix, and we all acknowledge the problems we have, whether they are in early years, in our curriculum, in numeracy and literacy — should I call them mathematics and English? — etc. We need to ensure that the new builds that have been announced are fast-tracked and that shovels are put in the ground to ensure that our construction industry gets those opportunities.

Our teachers have suffered from an initiative overload over the years. We had the NINA and the NILA and whatever else, and just when teachers were getting into them, things were changed with computer-based assessment, which was a bit of a disaster. The whole idea of being strategic is extremely important to where we will go with our education.

There are three issues. First, our young people need to get the opportunities to realise their potential. Secondly, our parents need support: they need to be encouraged and facilitated to ensure that their children achieve. Remember that 80% of education takes place outside the school. Thirdly, our teachers need to have time to do what they joined the profession to do: teach.

I will move on to the first group of amendments. We are happy to support the amendments regarding the functions and duties of the authority and technical matters. We are committed to an education system that provides the best possible education for every student in Northern Ireland. We firmly believe in parental choice. We also recognise that the various sectors that are available to parents and pupils here are indicative of our unique educational landscape. The Bill, in its original form, neglects to give adequate attention to the integrated and Irish-medium sectors and to voluntary grammars, which constitute a significant proportion of our system. Many people in those systems have highlighted the detrimental impact of the lack of legislative obligation. Making it a duty of the new authority to facilitate and promote them will help to make it a truly representative body.

We intend to support Mr Lunn's two amendments. We also intend to support Mr McCallister's amendments regarding shared education and the community use of schools. Like others, I urge caution on shared education, because we need to get it right. What do we mean by "shared education"? Do we mean two schools meeting once a year for a football match? Do we mean something on the level of the fantastic programme that we heard is happening in Cross and Passion College and Ballycastle High School at the Education Committee last week? Do we mean what is happening in integrated schools? I agree with other Members that there is quite a bit of work to be done.

We will support John McCallister's amendment on the community use of schools, but I urge caution. Do not put any more responsibility or pressure on our school leaders: they need support.

We will support Steven Agnew's amendment, but, like Mr Lunn, I have reservations about talking just about Catholic and Protestant because there are many people who are neither who wish to be involved in our education system.

We will also support the Ulster Unionist amendments.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I am very grateful to be speaking. I apologise if you see me going in and out of the Chamber constantly throughout the day. If I can make a plug — it is an education plug — the Bloodhound, which is the vehicle that will try to break the world record for going at 1,000 mph next year or the year after in South Africa, is here for children to learn all about its technological aspects, which might inspire primary-school children to take up engineering and other sciences later. That is what it is there for, so I ask everyone to have a look at it so that we can push it and get more children into that world, because that is where the jobs are and where the future lies.

I am very pleased that we have got here again and will, hopefully, get to an education authority that works for all of us. It is good to see it here. We wanted to see a leaner, more efficient body, and let us all try to get there.

I am going to have a slight grumble still that, if we were not doing accelerated passage, we would not have quite so many amendments and would probably not be having the petitions of concern. We would be sitting down and doing what we should be doing in this Building: talking to each other and finding the right way forward. However, we have got what we have got, and enough of a grump from me on that, but we do need to find a way to work out how we are going to get this body to work.

I hate seeing a petition of concern being used at any time. It is the wrong way to do any form of government. It is a sort of bullying to get your own way. I thought that those days were finished at school. I thought we even had legislation against bullying. Anyway, you know that this party wants a single shared education system. By that we are looking at a big shared education system with everything working in together. So it is great to know that the DUP is thinking along similar lines. I think we are, on the whole, all in here wanting to get in the same direction, but somehow, when it gets to wording, we all fall out.

What I really want to see from this Bill is a board that represents every single sector of school in proportion to the numbers of pupils they have, and that can change in the future as the changes carry on because the world will change. We know that it is an interim Bill, but not if it is an interim Bill for two or three years or one that could still be on the statute book in 10 or 20 years.

We have got to get something here that works, and yet I would like a little bit of direction from the Minister. We are told that we have a body here that is not meant to be making strategic decisions, yet, at the same time, it is going to be involved in policy, so actually it is. That goes back to my previous point that we have got to have a system that works well into the future and changes as our schools change.

I would love to be supporting amendment No 1, which is to encourage and facilitate integrated education. In one way, it already has all the support it needs, which is through the Belfast Agreement and the Acts that are in place. This amendment does not give it any more. Yes, it mentions it in the Bill and puts it there. We all need to be talking this through over the next two or three weeks before we get to the next stage. I want shared education, and shared is the bigger bubble which integrated is in, so I will be supporting John McCallister's amendment more. We have not got a definition for that, but I will touch on that in a minute.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I am happy to give way, yes.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member help us to understand a bit more what exactly he means by a single but shared education system and why he is not, therefore, able to support integrated education?

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you. We had a debate on that a few months ago where we all managed to find different ways of trying to understand what shared education is. As I see it, it is a mechanism whereby we are all going towards the same aim, which is everyone learning together but accepting each other's religions and differences and working together.

At the moment, we have integrated, which is fantastic and does very well but has no religion involved in it. We have to recognise and accept people's religion. Before you say it, I recognise that within your family and church is your way of doing it, but there are so many other things. We have integrated schools with a big "I", which are integrated and fine, but we have a mass of controlled schools that are as good as integrated and mixed schools.

What I am trying to get to by pushing for a single shared system is everyone sharing as much as they can but recognising their religious differences and working together. It is so nearly the same, but shared is a bigger encompassment of it all. Until we get a proper definition, that is the only reason why I am not supporting the amendment.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I will happily give way.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

The Member is on record from only a few weeks ago as supporting integrated education — and I forget the exact term he used — with every bone in his body, every fibre of his being or everything he has ever believed in, but it seems that, when it comes to actually voting for it, he has a problem. It is OK to speak to it but not to vote for it.

Just to touch on the point, Mr Kinahan, about there being no religion in it. Integrated schools have religious instruction. They prepare Catholic children for the sacraments, to the entire satisfaction of the Catholic bishops. Do not tell me that Protestant children are in some way left out because of that. They cater for all.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

It is more the choice between integrated with a capital "I" and integrated with a small "i". I am not saying, "This week, in the Chamber, and on this particular amendment." I want us to agree that we will get it agreed by all of us over the next few weeks so that we get something that works. Putting it in as it is today is the wrong way, until we know exactly what we are doing with shared education and a whole lot of the other amendments. It is about the order that things come in. Let us use the time that we have to get something out of it. I fully support integrated education, but it is with a small "i" and it is about trying to get everyone into a shared system, of which integrated is very much a part.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

Yes, if I can remember where I am each time.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. I welcome that he supports integration with a small "i", but surely that calls the Member's party's support for academic selection into question. You say that you want kids from all backgrounds to be together in the classroom. Academic selection keeps them apart. If you accept integration on a religious basis, surely it is also important to support it on a socio-economic basis, whether with a small "i" or big "I".

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I challenge you on the fact that it keeps them apart. It does keep different streams apart, and we have to find a way of sharing that too, which also fits into my vision of a shared future.

I am all for academic selection and getting our voluntary schools in, but we must find a way of spreading it to everyone. It is the same argument that we have all the time. Rather than destroy the best schools and reduce them all to the lowest common denominator, let us lift every school to get every advantage that we can from sharing. That is where I am coming from. We are not that far apart. It is just when it comes to the words and the names that it falls apart.

We will oppose amendment No 1 and, for the same reasons, amendment No 2, until we get an idea of where we are going with sharing. It is the same idea. Let us sit down over the next few months and try to work it out. Do not split hairs on it, which is what you are trying to do at the moment. Let us find a way that we can work through it so that the Irish language is included just as much.

As you have just heard, I am really pleased to see amendment No 3, on shared education, being brought forward. However, we need a definition. My feeling is that we want to support it and put it through but that we should maybe not move it, which I think is what the Department is asking for, and get a definition in place so that all the Bill can be thought through so that it fits together and is not just parties having a shot at one another.

As I have said all the way through, the vision is to try to get all types of schools sharing, academically and religiously. We do have a problem in that we spend a lot of time in the Chamber talking about the sectors and forget that a whole mass of other people in Northern Ireland are part of the education system too. We need to work for everybody. I want to see an education system that gives everybody a chance to learn, so that they can go and work anywhere in the world and that Northern Ireland can become a leader in the world. People would be brought up here to recognise everybody with mutual respect and a shared future, all pulling together. Northern Ireland would then find its place in the world.

I fully accept that what is in amendment No 4 is happening at the moment and do not mind it going in. We will support it. However, I do have one concern, as I have said before. We have a mass of council buildings. The more we push to use schools, we must find some way of working with councils to make sure that, when schools start pulling everyone in, as they should, we do not end up with a mass of other buildings that are not being used and other communities losing support because of, for example, distance or transport. We have to think our way through that one. However, we are supporting amendment No 4.

Amendment No 5, from the Green Party, is just too narrow for me. Again, I want us all to sit down and find the right way forward with this. At the moment, we are all jousting over our individual ways forward for schools. The amendment has a lot of the right values, but I do not want just Catholic and Protestant; I want everybody involved: Muslim, Jew or whatever.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for giving way. Will he not accept that the terms of amendment No 5 are only exactly what it already says in legislation? There is no difference. I have not heard the Member, in fairness to him, speak against it. He just does not seem able to support it. It does not make any difference.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I sometimes wonder whether the Member ever listens to anything that I say. I just said very clearly that it only mentions Catholic and Protestant and that I want it to be broader than that. That is the only reason that I am not supporting it. It says a lot of the right things, but, again, we need to think through the wording. The point of what we are doing at the moment is to get everyone thinking and to come together and get it right for next time.

I take on board what the Chair of the Committee said about amendment No 8. We wanted to make sure that there was a system whereby nothing was brought through slyly by any Minister from any side in the future. We wanted something that would work and would make sure that we, as a democratic institution, have a chance to have our say. I am quite happy not to move the amendment today so that we can look again at how we bring it in so that there is a system of checks and balances and also speed in the system so that we can tackle things. It will be a fine balance. I go back to the point that I made at the beginning. Because of accelerated passage, everything is piling onto one Bill today, with not much chance for any of us to talk to one another and find collective ways forward.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

The Chair, speaking in her capacity as Chair and also as a member of the DUP, indicated what we will and will not support. When we were speaking about accelerated passage last week, I said that I felt that it was a good day for education. I still believe that this is a good day for education. Indeed, whilst there are differing views in the Chamber, I am still confident that we can find our way through those differing views and produce an education authority that will serve the pupils of Northern Ireland well in the future.

It is good to see the Chamber filled today with young people who are still in education and who are the future of Northern Ireland. It is good to see them here and interested in the debate, because it is they who will carry forward our future and who will set the barometers and the standards for society in the future. I have every confidence in the young people of Northern Ireland that they will do that responsibly.

There are those who are, to some degree, harking back to the ESA Bill, as perhaps outlined in their thinking in the amendments. I want to say a few words on each of them, because the Chair has covered them in detail from a DUP perspective.

The ethos, certainly from this side of the House, was that we were trying to get an education authority that would be good for education, would be flexible and innovative in how it would deliver and, indeed, proactive and reactive to the changing circumstances of education provision in the Province. The ESA Bill, in its attempt to do so, did nothing but divide the House to the extent that there could not possibly have been any progress. It was my feeling, and that of my colleagues, that we had reached a stage with the education authority Bill that we were going to move forward beyond the ESA and beyond the arguments. Of course there is a time for arguments, but there is a time for debate, a time to put forward your views and a time to resolve those views for the betterment of our education system.

There certainly was a feeling with ESA that there was no agreement and no recognition that all sectors — there obviously are sectors within our education system — were not on a level playing field. There is the potential to move beyond that discussion and to get us all working on that level playing field. There are arguments around it, and you can understand that. My position is that there is a need for the controlled sector to play on a level playing field, and you can understand the role that others play.

I recognise the passion that Trevor Lunn has for the integrated sector. I want to say this, and this point was raised, I think, by Mr Kinahan as well: I chose integrated education for my children. I did not choose a school that had "integrated education" in its title; it was not identified as such. My wife and I chose to send our children to Methodist College, a school that, from its foundation, has opened its doors to children and pupils from all backgrounds, both religious backgrounds and racial backgrounds. It is a fine example of how integrated education works without having the word "integrated" in the title of a school. It does not stand outside the controlled sector — it stands within it — but it opens its doors to children from all backgrounds. Indeed, there are a growing number of schools in the controlled sector that do exactly the same.

There is an amendment around shared education. The party leader has spoken on that, and the Chair has indicated how we want to take it forward. However, there is no Committee view on what shared education is or what it means. Indeed, the Committee's inquiry into shared education has just started.

Mr Kinahan also referred to what I suppose is a paragon within the circumstances of education. The principals of two schools in Ballycastle gave evidence to the Education Committee on shared education. You could not have faulted those principals on their approach, enthusiasm, leadership and responsibilities. Indeed, one of the principals indicated that he felt that he had taken a major step forward when Ballycastle High School and Cross and Passion College had embarked on that road. One of the milestones that he measured progress by was when he saw a hockey stick sitting side by side with a hurling stick in one of his classrooms.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for giving way, and I am sorry to have to take him back a wee bit. He specified Methodist College as a perfect example of natural integration. I completely agree with him, and there are plenty of other examples, such as Dominican College, my old school — BRA — and St Columbanus' College. We all know them. I think that Mr McCausland also went to BRA; where did I go wrong? The point is this: why, if you are going to cite good examples of where Catholic, Protestant and other children are educated together, would you oppose an extension of that principle? That is it in simple terms. Why support one but not the other?

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I am not supporting one and objecting to the other as it stands. What I am saying is that, on the point of integrated education — I understand that Mr Lunn is the product of integrated education but not of the integrated sector. You can see what a fine job the truly integrated sector has done with Mr Lunn. It is evidenced there.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I am happy to give way.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Would the Member note that the same school produced Basil McCrea?

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

Well —

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I am happy to give way.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I just want to make the point that BRA was not really integrated in my day, to be honest. I was in BRA when the first Roman Catholic arrived at the school. He joined our form at junior certificate level, and it was a minor sensation because, until then, we only had, effectively, Protestants and a fairly substantial Jewish population. It has moved on, and it is good to see.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I turn to amendment No 4, which is on community use. There is no doubt that there is a greater movement towards schools and community and schools and councils working together on this issue, and it is an important issue. It is an important issue, even in terms of the encouragement of the well-being of the population in the area and, indeed, the health of the local population. Indeed, it is something to be encouraged.

Specifically on amendment No 5, there are differing views on this, obviously. As we have already said, there is not a constant view of integrated education. However, it seems a little hypocritical for Mr Hazzard to indicate in favour of amendment No 5 but then indicate that he will vote against the shared education amendment. That seems —

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Thanks to the Member for giving way. On a point of clarification, I am totally in support of shared education. The fact is that we do not have an agreed and confirmed definition of what shared education is. That will be forthcoming in the months and years ahead. I just think that the amendment is not timely.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for that clarification.

The headline in today's 'Irish News' shows the differing views:

"CCMS tells ministers to stop promoting integrated education".

There is a barrier and a hurdle to be gotten over, and, if we were to go ahead and adopt amendment No 5, it would, in fact, place the Bill in much more difficult circumstances than we all envisaged the Bill to be in when we debated it last week.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I speak in support of amendment Nos 1, 2 and 5, and I oppose amendment Nos 3, 4 and

I will start with amendment No 8. We will oppose that amendment for the reasons that have already been articulated by my colleague Chris Hazzard. There is no need for me to go into them again.

On the amendment relating to shared education, there was some toing and froing across the Chamber a moment ago. It is clear that there are some excellent models of shared education. Indeed, last week, we had the principals of Ballycastle High School and Cross and Passion College at the Committee. A few Members have already mentioned that. It is an absolutely excellent model of sharing resources. Everyone at the Committee that day was very impressed by the model of sharing that is working and working very well in Ballycastle. However, both principals agreed, as did a couple of academics who were in the Committee afterwards, that, while that model works in Ballycastle, it may not work in other areas in the North, particularly in areas that were affected to a greater extent by the conflict. I am talking about interface areas such as in north Belfast, where the model that exists in Ballycastle might not necessarily work as well.

While we have examples and models of sharing, we do not have a clear legal definition. Miss McIlveen said that she supported shared education, but a common definition needs to be finalised. She would also like support for shared education to be put on a statutory footing. I cannot understand how you can put something on a statutory footing when you do not have a legal definition of it. There is a clear legal definition of integrated education but not of shared education. As my colleague Chris Hazzard said, hopefully we can come to an agreed definition of what we want shared education to be at some stage in the future.

Amendment No 4 relates to the issue of encouraging, facilitating and promoting the community use of school premises. Again, we are asking the new authority to do something that is not within its remit; it is not within its gift. According to the evidence that we have, almost 80% of schools already allow their premises to be used by communities. The fact is that many of the schools would not be under the control of the new authority. Maintained, integrated and Irish-medium schools would be outside the remit of the new authority. They could not in any way force the managing authorities of those schools to allow them —

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Sure.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Does the Member accept that all those schools receive public money?

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Of course I do. Is there another point you want to make on that?

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I am happy to elaborate. If schools are getting public money, we should, of course, call the tune on how much activity goes on in them. We need to sweat all the assets that we have. Schools should be at the hub of communities, and I want that to be promoted and invested in. We cannot afford to have schools that receive public money not being used for the good of the community.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I have no disagreement with anything that the Member has said, but, if the authority does not have legal ownership of the schools, it cannot force the managing authorities to make them available for community use. While I agree with the sentiment that is being expressed in that amendment, I do not think that it would in any way obligate managing authorities to accept the dictate of the new authority. Simply on that basis, I oppose that amendment. I do not have any —

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for giving way. In my bitter experience of the authorities that oversee schools, it is not the real authorities — the boards of governors — that are the sticking block. I find that, when it comes to the main authorities, which, in today's sense, are the five boards, there is always an issue, so I fully agree with John on this point. There must be something in there that incentivises the new authority to encourage the sharing of these facilities, because, at present, it is often the authorities — the boards — that are the blocking points to their being used as community facilities. Only a few weeks ago, I had a major argument with the local board about the use of a football club and pitches in one of our schools. It is absolutely imperative that we have John's amendment to encourage that local use.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Again, I do not disagree with anything the Member said, except the last bit. I do not think that the amendment would encourage the boards to follow the course of action that you refer to. I wholeheartedly agree that schools should be the hub of any community and their facilities should be available to the community, whether they are educational, sporting or whatever. The amendment on its own will not bring that about. For that reason and that reason only I oppose the amendment.

I will move on to amendment Nos 1 and 2, on the issues of integrated and Irish-medium education, and amendment No 5, which is a similar amendment on integrated education. When it comes to the DUP, I am not sure whether it supports integration or is opposed to it — the leader was out not that long ago saying that the DUP supported integration in the whole education system — so I am a bit concerned about that. They regularly talk about this level playing field; the fact is that in terms of Irish-medium education and integrated education, there is no level playing field. That is why there is a legal obligation on the Minister to encourage and facilitate both those sectors. They are not even at the starting line yet, and they need to be brought up to the starting line. That is why that obligation is there. That is why the Minister is under that obligation to encourage and facilitate. It strikes me that, given what DUP Members have said about integrated education, they support it, but why are they opposing it today? It seems to me that we get back to the same old story: they are totally opposed to anything to do with Irish-medium education.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Let me finish the point, and I will give way to the two of you. The point is this: in order to pretend that they do not have some sort of bigotry against Irish-medium education, they decide to oppose Irish-medium education and integrated.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Thank you for the opportunity to intervene. The key point for me is not that the new authority should not encourage or facilitate anything but that it should be done on a basis of equality. There should not be preferential treatment and a preferential responsibility put on the new authority to promote one over another, because , if there is a reference in the legislation that says that it is a duty to promote and encourage a particular section and that responsibility is not applied to others, there is a preferential position and a discriminatory position being delivered. I hope that the other Member will help with that answer.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

If Mr Newton wants to make a contribution —

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

My comment was along the same lines, but I am grateful to the Member for giving way to my colleague.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

If we are talking about equality, I hope that the Member will also apply that criterion to membership of the board. In respect of equality and preferential treatment, as the Member called it, we make disabled accesses for people who are disabled because they need to be treated in an equal way. Sporting organisations organise competitions in particular age groups for children so that there will be equal access or equal treatment for all children in that age group. It is not a matter of preferential treatment; it is a matter of equality. On that point, I will finish.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.34 pm.

On resuming —

Oral Answers to Questions

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

We will start with listed questions.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

1. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline his plans for extending park-and-ride facilities at Sprucefield and the general Lisburn area. (AQO 6880/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am very pleased to say that the park-and-ride site at Sprucefield has been an outstanding success, with a dedicated 20-minute service running to Belfast's Great Victoria Street bus station during peak hours at a cost of £6·10 for a return journey or £22·50 for a week.

More and more commuters are seeing the benefits of switching to public transport, which is afforded priority over other traffic on the inbound bus lanes on the M1. The existing site holds up to 320 vehicles and is currently operating close to capacity. As such, my Department intends, subject to the proposal clearing the necessary statutory procedures, to provide a new 650-space park-and-ride site with full facilities at Sprucefield to expand the existing provision in that area. In addition, Translink currently has proposals at the early feasibility stages of development to provide a park-and-ride facility on the former college of further education site at Knockmore Road, Lisburn. Delivery of that project will be subject to the necessary statutory approvals and availability of funding.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he assure the House that park-and-ride will not hinder further economic development at Sprucefield, Lisburn?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for her supplementary question. My view is that park-and-ride will complement retail and, indeed, better and easier connectivity. It has been an undoubted success at Sprucefield, and I look forward, hopefully, to bringing forward the new scheme that will increase, enhance and improve it.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Is the Minister minded to look at the possibility of extending the bus lane on the M1 hard shoulder to reduce journey times and incentivise motorists to take public transport into the city?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for asking that question. It is something that we are considering. Obviously, whilst there may well be benefits in terms of congestion, we would also have to ensure that there was immediate and available access for emergency vehicles etc. However, we are looking at that, and I hope to say something about it in the not-too-distant future.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Minister will be well aware of my lobbying on behalf of park-and-ride facilities, particularly in my constituency of Upper Bann. Will he outline what plans Translink has to progress additional sites in this and the next financial years?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for her question. Translink has proposals to take forward seven park-and-ride rail and bus schemes in 2014-15 and 2015-16. For rail, they include Ballymoney, Whiteabbey, Cullybackey and Moira, and for bus, they include the Ballymartin area of Belfast and, of particular attention to her — and I hope she will be pleased — we intend to develop sites at Portadown and Lurgan in the Upper Bann constituency. I have no doubt that she will be pleased with that news.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

2. asked the Minister for Regional Development how much has been spent on roads maintenance in each of the past three years per mile of road. (AQO 6881/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Maintaining the road network continues to be one of my Department’s highest priorities. In Northern Ireland, there are 16,200 miles of publicly maintained roads, including 5,800 bridges and 295,000 illuminated assets, which include street lights. Maintenance funding comes from my Department’s capital and resource budgets. Capital structural maintenance is carried out to improve the long-term condition of the network and includes activities such as resurfacing and surface dressing, whereas the resource budget is used to fund the day-to-day maintenance operations such as patching, which is part of structural maintenance, grass cutting and winter service.

It has been independently established that some £133 million at 2012 prices is required annually to maintain the network. The current structural maintenance budget is some £65 million, leaving a shortfall of £68 million.

During the past three financial years the respective amounts spent on structural maintenance were £7,633 per mile in 2011-12, £6,929 per mile in 2012-13, and £8,291 per mile in 2013-14.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his very interesting answer. I picked up on him using the word "shortfall". Minister, your Department says that, of the average £160 road tax income received per vehicle, it spent only £118 in 2010 and upped that last year to £138. That is a shortfall of £44 million and £23 million respectively, raised by our motorists but not spent here. In light of that, will you give an undertaking to the House to obtain the transfer of excise duty and annually publish the amount raised and the amount spent on road maintenance?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question. He poses me quite an interesting challenge, which I have no difficulty in attempting, but I assume that it will mean that I will be actively engaged with DFP and Executive colleagues as we seek to make that change and see whether benefit could therefore be accrued. I have consistently argued the case for adequate finance for roads maintenance and structural issues around the Executive table. The Member, as a member of the Committee for Regional Development, will accept that. Indeed, the Committee has been pleased and has given me support for that in the past, and I hope that that will continue.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Minister will be aware — as, I am sure, all Members are — of examples where resurfacing schemes have taken place only for public and private utility companies to come in very soon after that and dig up the roads, then leave them in a condition that taxpayers often find unacceptable. What more can be done by the Department to prevent those circumstances from taking place and, when they do, what responsibility can be put on those utility companies that carry out that work to make sure that it is restored to the manner in which it was before they started the work?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question. I realise that there are occasions when that appears to happen and, indeed, does happen. We try to minimise those as much as possible by being aware of schemes being undertaken by the different utility companies. Of course, we have a hold-back period of up to a year if we are not entirely satisfied that it is absolutely necessary to be done at that time. Of course, if there are cases where the repair work carried out by any of the utility companies, or, indeed, anyone else, is found to be unsatisfactory or substandard, we are very active in ensuring that that work is done to an acceptable level, even if it means insisting that contractors return. It is something that I am personally interested in, and I give the Member an assurance that we limit the number of cases. I think that it has improved over recent years, and it is something that we always bear in mind.

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

I am being very careful not to shoot the messenger, because he inherits an awful legacy of neglect in terms of road safety, but can the Minister go on accepting the crumbs from the rich man's table and depending on monitoring rounds to shore up a maintenance programme that is deteriorating by the day?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for the point that he makes. I would rather have a budget that is differently structured. I think that it would make more sense for that budget to be established and known at the start of a financial year. It would certainly make for better planning. It would also give us a better chance to get more benefit for the money that we spend in terms of the timing of work being carried out. I have been making that argument around the Executive table and to the Finance Minister, and I will continue to do so.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. Could the Minister give us an estimate of how much moneys might come to road maintenance from the October monitoring round?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

The Member should know that we are bidding for significant moneys in October monitoring. On capital resource, we have bid for something like £45 million. Obviously, we could spend that money without fear or favour. Early indications are that we are not going to receive that amount. In fact, it may be that only one third of that amount is available for structural maintenance. I have to say that I am concerned about that, because I feel that the network needs to be constantly maintained. As we approach the deeper winter period in particular, I think that it is important that we get the opportunity to spend as much as possible on structural maintenance and reduce the likelihood of accidents or incidents and, indeed, the potential for claims against the Department.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

3. asked the Minister for Regional Development for an update on the Belfast rapid transit system. (AQO 6882/11-15)

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

7. asked the Minister for Regional Development for an update on the Belfast rapid transit system. (AQO 6886/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

With the Principal Deputy Speaker's permission, I would like to reply to questions 3 and 7 together, as they are on the same subject.

The implementation phase of the Belfast rapid transit project began in May of this year. Work is progressing well on the construction of a new 520-space park-and-ride facility at Dundonald. It is anticipated that this will be operational in December and be served by existing Translink services prior to Belfast rapid transit becoming operational in 2017. Work is also progressing on the sections of the Belfast rapid transit route on the Upper Newtownards Road between Sandown Road and Knock Road, and on the Falls Road between Grosvenor Road and Whiterock Road. The works have been well publicised in advance, and details of the impacts on local traffic are available on my Department's TrafficwatchNI website.

In May of this year, I committed funding to enable the procurement of the rapid transit vehicles to commence. It will take approximately three years from procurement to delivery of the proposed fleet of 38 vehicles. The new Belfast rapid transit system is scheduled to become operational in 2017, subject to the completion of the necessary statutory processes and the availability of finance.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I am pleased about and welcome the development in east and west Belfast. Can the Minister inform the House whether he has any plans for or ideas as to when the great constituency of North Belfast will be included in the rapid transit system?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary. While I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet, I think we were able to identify the question that he might ask. The pilot network that my Department is developing will connect east Belfast, west Belfast and the Titanic Quarter, and will go through the city centre. However, my Department intends to extend the network to the north and south of the city. Of course, this is subject to the success of the pilot routes and the availability of funding. My Department is engaging with those responsible for proposed developments on potential routes outside the current pilot network, including DSD and the University of Ulster, to ensure as far as possible that the future provision of Belfast rapid transit (BRT) to key areas is not prejudiced. So, I think that there is some good news.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I start by congratulating the Minister on the successful cycling conference that the Department held last week. Cyclists often come across problems with bus lanes. Can the Minister outline what vehicles will or will not be allowed in BRT lanes and how discussions about that are progressing, as this will obviously have an impact on travel times and sustainable transport?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question and, indeed, almost blushed at his high praise for the cycling conference last week. [Laughter.] I pay particular tribute to the organisers of that in my Department's cycling unit. They excelled themselves. The speakers that we engaged were high quality; there was huge interest; and I thank the Member and other Members, including the Chair of the Regional Development Committee, who attended or dropped in to hear some of the benefits of cycling. The conference will be put on the website at some stage, so that others who were not there will be able to share in its success.

The Member will know that we are going forward with the model of bus — some people call it the bendy bus — that has the capacity to hold more passengers. Cyclists, of course, will be allowed into bus lanes, as they are at present. We see very much the opportunity for the rapid transit system to provide huge benefits for the city of Belfast. We also expect to have an integrated ticketing system, and, of course, it will also be incorporated into and integrated with the new Belfast bike hire scheme, which is scheduled to come into operation early next year. I am aware that the Member is a keen cyclist. Those with folding bicycles will be able to carry them onto BRT vehicles.

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

I assure the Minister that my question is not facetious; sometimes, Members have to call it: does he agree with me that progress on the Belfast rapid transport system is far from rapid and, given what he has outlined, is in fact going at a snail's pace?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Whilst I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question, I am afraid that I do not agree with him. We have pursued this scheme with considerable vigour and continue to do so. We have learnt important lessons from other major cities, including Nantes. We have engaged with stakeholders and other interested parties, including those from the residential areas that will be impacted. It is not a piece of work that you can simply impose on communities or create magically, as it were. We have adopted the right approach. I hope very much that he recognises the benefits of a rapid transit system and will be a little less cynical or perhaps even less negative about it. I am happy to ask officials to give him a full briefing to reassure him.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

As we are talking about rapid transit, I know that the Minister has visited the Bloodhound outside on the apron and wonder whether he might adopt that as the departmental car or use some of its technology for faster transit in the future. [Laughter.]

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am conscious of the number of bloodhounds in the Chamber, without having to leave it. To be serious, I congratulate the Member on making the arrangements so that the Bloodhound could visit Parliament Buildings. I recommend that those who have not had the chance to at least look at it go and do so. However, as opposed to a high-speed vehicle of that nature, which is, I think, capable of travelling at 1,000 miles per hour at certain locations — not at Parliament Buildings, I hasten to add — we are about to deliver a rapid transit system for Belfast that will assist people greatly and enhance public transport.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I welcome the introduction of improved public transport in the constituency of East Belfast. How important does the Minister think that effective bus lane enforcement will be to the success of the Belfast rapid transit system?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question. One of the key components of the Belfast rapid transit system will be using bus lanes as priority priority bus lanes — they should do what it says on the tin. Motorists who abuse the instructions given to them are causing difficulties and further congestion in the system in Belfast city centre. That is regrettable. As the Member knows, we are looking at a proposal to introduce enforcement fines. I hope that that will have the support not only of the Regional Development Committee and the Member but of the House generally, because I think that, whilst carrots work in some cases, sometimes, we also need a bit of stick.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

4. asked the Minister for Regional Development for an update on the borewell scheme. (AQO 6883/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

The rural borewells scheme, funded by my Department and administered by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, was launched on 6 June 2012. The principal aim of the scheme is to provide a quality water supply for existing properties that have never been served by a public water main. The first year of the scheme, launched in 2012, assisted 24 properties to obtain a quality water supply for the first time. The 2013-14 scheme assisted 38 properties. The 2014-15 scheme is scheduled to assist approximately 28 properties. I anticipate that a total of 90 householders will have received a new borewell and/or treatment by the end of the third year of the scheme and have the assurance of a quality, safe-to-drink water supply for the first time.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for his answer.

The scheme was welcomed at the time, Minister, particularly in rural areas where people lived far from the mains water system. I welcome the numbers that you outlined today. Will you give me a breakdown by county of the number of households that have availed themselves of the scheme?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question and for his support for the scheme. As I said, it is expected that 90 householders will have received a new borewell and/or treatment by the end of the third year. An initial assessment exercise carried out by my Department at the beginning of the project identified three areas that had large numbers of unserved properties: the glens of Antrim, the Sperrins and south Armagh. That initial assessment has largely been confirmed by the applications received by the DARD officials who operate the scheme. By the end of the third year, the geographical spread across Northern Ireland will be as follows: 36 borewells in Antrim; five in Armagh; eight in Down; six in Fermanagh; 15 in Londonderry; and 20 in Tyrone. Anyone with any mathematical prowess will know that adding those up makes 90.

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

I thank the Minister for his help in trying to address this issue. Does he have any idea how many households in Northern Ireland are still without a public water supply? Does he accept that technology should be developed that could enable mains water to be pumped even to highland areas in some way?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

The Member raises an interesting point. The cost involved in providing a mains water supply is always a challenge. The benefit of this scheme is that it assisted householders to get a cleaner and better supply than they had hitherto been in receipt of. Whilst I listened carefully to what the Member said, I think that there are excessive costs in many of the particularly rural locations. That has to be borne in mind. That has been one of the benefits of the borewell scheme. I hope that the Member will accept that.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

5. asked the Minister for Regional Development for his assessment of the public safety implications of not repairing or replacing faulty street lights. (AQO 6884/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

As the Member will know, my Department is facing significant resource budget constraints, and I am not in a position to spend money that I do not have. Consequently, I have had to take a number of difficult decisions, including the suspension of works orders to external contractors who were responsible for the repair of approximately three quarters of the street lights that go out.

I readily acknowledge that, since street lighting is provided as a road safety measure, these cuts have the potential to lead to safety issues for road users during the hours of darkness. I assure you that, to deal with the health and safety implications, I have set priorities for dealing with street lighting faults. Priority will be given to those faults that present an electrical hazard to members of the public, and contractors will still be employed to deal with those faults.

My Department's operations and maintenance staff, who can provide around 25% of the overall resource that is required to fix street lighting faults, will endeavour to repair as many lights as possible, prioritising large groups of lights which are out and then individual lights that have failed.

Regrettably, the impact of the cuts means that, in all likelihood, a large number of street lights will be out over the winter months. I can tell the Member and indeed the House that currently some 11,261 lights are out right across Northern Ireland. This is not the service that I would like to provide, but is the inevitable consequence of the budgetary pressures that my Department is facing.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his answer, although I am far from being satisfied. At a recent meeting of the Committee for Regional Development, the Minister and his Department informed the Committee that where the Department provides street lighting, it has a duty to maintain it. The Minister has gone on to say that he has cancelled the contractors who maintain those lights. How can he quickly rectify the situation and gain some credibility, bearing in mind the dangers that certainly senior citizens and old people will have in darkened streets and roads?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful the Member for his supplementary question. I am not sure about gaining credibility for me; I think that what would be more important would be to gain more money for my Department. That would be a big start, actually.

The Member has raised the legal aspect of it. The Department has received legal advice on this issue. It will continue to inspect roads and footways as per the normal inspection regime. All defects will be recorded as normal. However, due to the financial constraints, defects may not be repaired as quickly as normal, and all repairs will be prioritised on the basis of safety. My Department will continue to robustly investigate and defend public liability claims, with every case turning on its own facts. However, ultimately, it will be up to the courts to decide if the reduced standards comply with my Department's statutory duty. In short, I have to say to Mr McCarthy that if we had more money, we could deal with the situation.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I realise and appreciate the financial constraints that the Minister is under. Can any special provision be made where pensioners' bungalows are unlit, particularly now coming into the winter months?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his sympathy for the financial position that I find myself in. I have outlined how we have been forced to prioritise things as a consequence of these cuts. It is not a scenario that I enjoy, relish or want to see. I would like to see it properly resourced. I can understand the impact on elderly, rural or more vulnerable people who live in areas where a street light provides an essential form of comfort, if you like, particularly on dark winter evenings.

I repeat, again, that it is not that we are ignoring, or will ignore, lights that are out but they will simply have to be prioritised in a way that is consistent with what I have outlined.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

That ends the period for listed questions. We move to topical questions. Ms Maeve McLaughlin is not in her place; I call Mr Ian McCrea.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

T2. asked the Minister for Regional Development for an update on the Magherafelt bypass. (AQT 1642/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am not sure whether that is a topical question or a typical question from the Member. [Laughter.] Significant advance works are under way as part of the delivery of the £40 million Magherafelt bypass. Surveys have been completed to identify potential archaeological sites. Temporary fencing has been erected and trial pit excavations have been completed to help inform the detailed design under this design-and-build contract. It is anticipated that advance archaeological investigative trenching and vegetation clearance will start in November, for completion prior to the award of the main contract. The procurement of the main contract is well under way and the tender return date is 24 November 2014. Subject to there being no challenges to the award of the contract, construction work should commence early next year.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for his answer to my typical topical question. I do not apologise for raising the issue, as he and the colleague sitting beside him know that it is an important issue for the local constituency. I am glad that the Minister has confirmed that things are moving progressively. Will he ensure that the work that is done with consultants and Roads Service officials, in respect of dealing with the local farming community, is kept up to date so that the community knows exactly what is happening and that any impact on their property is reduced? That would certainly be helpful to them.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary topical typical question, and I thank him for it. The scheme will bring huge benefit to the Magherafelt area and indeed that area generally. I think that the success of any scheme depends upon the cooperation extended and information given to local landowners, not only by the contractor but by the Department, in the early stages of the work. We have sought to do that and will continue to do so, and I hope very much that we can make progress and, indeed, enjoy the full cooperation of landowners and people in that area because, of course, there will be issues and challenges and there will undoubtedly be inconvenience to them. However, I think that, having waited 40 years for the scheme — as Mrs Overend continues to remind me — it is important to them that we move it forward as quickly as possible.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

T3. asked the Minister for Regional Development, at this time of year, with autumn winds, leaves falling down and floods, seemingly always in the same places, what priority he is giving to gully emptying, albeit with the financial constraints he is operating under. (AQT 1643/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question. Indeed, the emptying of gullies is a very important issue. The Department seeks to maintain something like 550,000 gullies, and that is a considerable challenge. It becomes an even greater challenge when there is not enough in my resource budget to pay external contractors to do the work that they do. The main work of gully emptying is carried out by Transport NI staff. That represents about three quarters, or 75%, of the total work, so there is potential for the other 25% to be a challenge. I have outlined to the House before how we seek to try to deal with it. Certainly, we give priority to wet spots, where there are issues of recurring flooding or where it has taken place in the past, in addition to other factors.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Five hundred and fifty thousand is a fairly frightening total, but I guess that 500,000 of them do not actually cause too much of a problem. The problem is with what you call "wet spots", and which I call hotspots. Severe damage can be caused by the simple failure to unblock a gully. I am sure that the Minister has been in houses that have flooded. A bad flood does more damage than a fire, in some cases, and takes much longer to sort out. I know that it is difficult, but is there any discretion in his budget to reallocate money from major projects that may be held up to the more simple but very useful operations that I am talking about?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for raising the issue. There are 550,000 gullies to be cleaned and emptied across Northern Ireland. I am not sure that the number that perhaps do not need careful or immediate attention is the number that he suggested. I sympathise with residents affected by flooding. Many homes experienced flooding late last week as a consequence of a high volume of rain; 40% of the average October rainfall fell in areas of Belfast over a period of seven hours last Thursday night. Simply, that volume is always in danger of overcoming any system. We continue to maintain to the best of our abilities. We are in the autumn season; we are coming in to the heavier winter season, with the falling of leaves. On a day like today, with strong winds, I have no doubt that even work done in advance to clean gullies over the last few days may well be nugatory, given the conditions that we have. That is the challenge that we have to deal with. We attempt to do so as efficiently as we can, but it is not helped when there are challenges to the budget. We will continue to bid for resources to deal with that. His suggestion of transferring resource to capital does not work and is not allowed under the rules.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I remind the Minister of the two-minute rule.

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

T4. asked the Minister for Regional Development to advise what security measures are in operation at car parks attached to train stations, bus stations and park-and-ride facilities, given that he will be aware of the recent car thefts in the Newry area, some of which were cars parked at Newry railway station. (AQT 1644/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for her question. I join her in condemning those who engage in such activities. One hopes that individuals can be identified, that the PSNI can take appropriate action to put them before the courts, and that the courts can deal with them sufficiently.

There are issues of security. Of course, CCTV is deployed in many of our stations. I will look at the situation in relation to Newry station, which is sometimes more commonly known as Bessbrook station.

I undertake to look at that for the Member to see whether any additional measures can be put in place.

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

I welcome the Minister's response. Let us hope that some of the CCTV cameras have an infrared mode so that, when the lights go out, people are able to see the crime scene.

Will the Minister consider further security measures to ensure that users of public transport feel safe to leave their vehicles and know that they will be protected?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for her question. Of course, we will look at that as part of the issue. I am loath to highlight the problem to a scale that it discourages people and makes them feel that they will not be safe. There is no clear evidence to indicate that that is the case at any of our locations, and we want to build on the record levels for the use of public transport that we are enjoying. Security is important and being safe is very important, and those are key priorities, not only for me but for Translink.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

T5. asked the Minister for Regional Development, given the financial pressures he is under, what measures are available to him to ensure continued growth in public transport, particularly to ease the pressure on the roads system at peak times. (AQT 1645/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for his question. I remain very positive about the progress that public transport has made over the last three-plus years.

On the bus side, numbers continue to be strong, with Metro showing the sort of steady progress that reflects its growing reliability and popularity. Rail, however, has been the star performer. Rail travel last year passed through the 13 million passenger journey barrier, taking it to levels not seen since the 1960s. I compare that to when we took over DRD, when 10 million passenger journeys were being made. Despite that programme, we have not reached a ceiling in rail. Further significant progress has been made on rail this year at the midpoint, and I expect that we may get close to 14 million journeys by the end of this financial year. If we reach that new high, I will no longer be saying, "record levels since the 1960s"; I will be taking pride in saying, "record levels since the 1950s". That is a change that I look forward to.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his answer and congratulate him on those record performances for public transport. Focusing on the road network, what measures are available to him within very constrained budgets to continue the growth of public transport and ease the pressures on our roads?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for his warm congratulations. Despite the well-documented challenges facing my Department, I am determined to continue the progress that we have made in growing public transport in Northern Ireland.

The park-and-ride scheme is working well, and we will continue to increase the number of park-and-ride facilities, with seven new locations to come online in the next 18 months or so. You heard earlier where those will be.

I am pleased that we will be introducing some additional weekend rail services before the end of the year. That will give existing passengers greater choice and will act as an incentive to potential new passengers. We will work hard to keep any future fare increases at the level of inflation, and I will continue to press the Finance Minister on TaxSmart for rail travel, which is a measure that has the capacity to make public transport much cheaper.

Next month, we begin the £12 million refurbishment of the Enterprise service, which will greatly improve passenger service. Also, the introduction of audiovisual services on Metro buses will be positive for tourists as well as those who are blind and partially sighted.

Of course, I am pleased that Belfast rapid transit is being progressed and is still on target to be operational by 2017.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I call Peter Weir for a quick question; no supplementary.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

T6. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline the locations and value of the strategic off-street car parks that he mentioned earlier as having been identified for local or regional development. (AQT 1646/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question. Indeed, I am pleased that the Second Stage of the Bill transferring powers to local government for off-street parking was successfully moved earlier.

I was not sure whether the Member wanted a list for his constituency or more generally. His sign language is working very well. I thought that it was a film, but it is not. [Laughter.]

[Interruption.] And the same to you — oh, no, it wasn't that.

We will provide that information as quickly and as completely as possible.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

My sign tells me that the time is up. Thank you very much, Minister.

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

1. asked the Minister for Social Development for an update on the application for development of the Girdwood site. (AQO 6894/11-15)

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

The development of Girdwood Park is well under way, with delivery of the entire plan a priority for not just my Department but right across central and local government. The infrastructure works for which my Department is responsible commenced recently, with completion due in autumn 2015. The outdoor sports pitch is expected to be delivered as part of that phase.

Construction is well under way on the Belfast City Council-led community hub, which is due to open in June 2015. Apex Housing has commenced construction of 60 housing units, which are due for completion in early 2016.

Looking at the remaining elements of the development, my Department is taking forward important preparatory work in the form of an economic appraisal to help to finalise plans for the indoor sports and mixed-use facilities, and that should be completed by March 2015. Development of the housing element along Clifton Park Avenue remains a priority and is likely to be the final phase of development.

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

I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his appointment, but —

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

But? [Laughter.]

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

— but could I also thank him for his detailed response. However, there is, as the Minister will know, a pressing housing need in north Belfast. Sixty units have been put forward by Apex Housing, but there is clearly a need for further housing. Will the Minister review the allocation of numbers of houses in that area?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his congratulations. Being in the post for a number of weeks now, I well know the challenges that are confronting me.

The Girdwood project is buying in key component parts to deliver a worthwhile project. I intend to visit the facility in the not-too-distant future to see it at first hand.

Mr Maginness referred to housing need. The demand for housing across north Belfast is always the issue. Since coming to post, I have become well aware of the challenges and sensitivities around housing. I will be conscious of those sensitivities and concerns. I trust that the one thing that the Member, and other Members, will find is that I will listen to those concerns and, more importantly, hear them.

Demand for housing across north Belfast remains high, with 1,438 applicants in housing stress at March 2014. The projected need for 2014-19 is 1,236 units. To help to address the need in that locality through the housing programme, 76 units are planned in 2014-15, 86 in 2015-16 and 121 in 2016-17.

However, I have to say that, as the Member will be aware, a review of housing policy is under way. I will take a particular look at that over the next weeks and months, because I have a concern about the way in which the Housing Executive categorises homelessness and the waiting list and the way in which it presents housing need. I am more than happy to meet the Member and other Members to have that discussion.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

This is my first opportunity to warn the Minister about the two-minute rule. [Laughter.]

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

I am sure that the Minister is aware of the sensitivities about the site. What steps has he taken to ensure community engagement?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Principal Deputy Speaker, that is not the first time that somebody has tried to call time on me. I appreciate your reminder.

I am very conscious of the concerns and sensitivities. It follows on from the comments that I made to Mr Maginness. Community engagement continues, first and foremost through the Girdwood community forum, which has a cross-community membership and provides a useful platform to address a range of issues. There have been community-based events to help to raise awareness, improve relationships and contribute to ideas. In response to some of the issues raised, I recently approved the issue of a community newsletter to some 18,000 homes in the area to provide clarity and certainty on government's commitment to the delivery of the entire plan. As the Member will know, if there are any particular concerns, she can relay them to me, and I will be only too happy to give them serious consideration.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

2. asked the Minister for Social Development whether he will review the 50:50 allocation policy for social housing in Belfast city centre to ensure any future policy decisions will be based on addressing objective need. (AQO 6895/11-15)

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

The Northern Ireland Housing Executive and registered housing associations allocate properties through the housing selection scheme. Applicant households are awarded points on the basis of their objective housing need. Properties are generally allocated to the person with the highest points. That is the case throughout Northern Ireland and will continue to be the case in Belfast city centre.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Comhgairdeas leis an Aire as a phost nua. I join my colleague Alban Maginness in congratulating the Minister on his new post. I very much look forward to working with him.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has clarified that points are given on the basis of need. It is good to have that on record. Is he aware that large parts of Belfast city centre are now in dereliction? Will he let me know what his plans are to work proactively with local communities so that there is social housing to address the current waiting list?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for her words. Obviously, the previous Minister and I have had exchanges in the past, and I have no doubt that that will continue in the future.

We need to remember a key element about the city centre, which is that we want to ensure that it is a shared space not only for recreational activity and economic prosperity but for housing. The original question referred to a 50:50 allocation policy: there is no such policy. The Member will be aware that Participation and the Practice of Rights (PPR) recently raised concerns on that issue. However, I assure the Member that the way in which we deliver housing will continue to be on the basis of need. I also remind the Member and the House that research was carried out by the University of Cambridge and the University of Ulster on a fundamental review of social housing allocation policy. That remains an area that I am considering as part of the follow-on from the report. Issues relating to the city centre and the way in which we deliver housing across Northern Ireland will be looked at on the basis of the information that we find in the report and consultation with Members.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

Minister, how is shared housing allocated?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

That is a valid question, and it was asked the first time that I was before the Assembly as Minister. In many respects, it goes to the heart of the way in which my Department, in conjunction with the Housing Executive, addresses the issue of housing in Northern Ireland. All social housing in Northern Ireland is allocated on the basis of need, and that ensures that the allocation of housing is compliant with Northern Ireland's equality legislation. We cannot socially engineer mixed social housing, and I would be the first to say that we should not do that in any circumstances. That is why I have tasked the Housing Executive to work with housing associations and local communities to support and encourage them to see the benefits of shared housing.

Achieving shared housing is not about forcing anything on anyone. We need to allow people to share housing because they want to, not because government says that they must. I want to see how we can provide choice for people to come together in a more natural way and not through some socially engineered plan that simply would not work. I also want to see how we can develop more social and affordable housing alongside each other so that people can have greater choice and flexibility about where they live and who they live beside.

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

I, too, join in congratulating the Minister, though the honeymoon must be coming to an end soon.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

It is over.

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

It is over. What is the Minister's assessment of the success or otherwise of shared housing schemes in Northern Ireland?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

It is all in how we measure and what we measure as success. Over the last few weeks, I have — I thank the Member for his words of congratulation — seen examples, and I plan to visit more examples of how there has been an attempt to deliver shared housing and shared provision. We still have a considerable way to go. It is all very fine setting targets and having it set out in policy papers, but I still think that there is an issue — I refer to the comments that I made in response to Mr Hilditch — of us being seen as a Government in Northern Ireland forcing a particular structure on people. We have to encourage the shared provision. Progress has been made, but not at the pace that I would like to see in terms of moving forward on the issue.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I, too, congratulate the Minister. In view of the disastrous situation in the Holylands, where we have seen student housing, in effect, driving out hundreds of families from a residential area, can he assure us that the Housing Executive land currently earmarked for social housing in other communities in inner south Belfast such as Sandy Row, Donegall Pass and the Village will not be permitted to go to student housing but will be retained by the Housing Executive for much-needed social housing?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his congratulations and share his concerns. I am well aware from correspondence that I received recently, particularly in relation to the development of the Northside project, how people have concerns around the increase in student accommodation. It is not a panacea and is not the answer to all our ills, but landlord registration is a way in which we can begin to create a sense of control over what is already there. I take the Member's point, particularly around how we ensure that land is designated and the discussions with the Housing Executive and other interested groups are held in a way that reflects the need but also reflects the community and the area in which that perceived need will be met.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

3. asked the Minister for Social Development whether his Department has met its target, as part of the Programme for Government commitments, to draw down an additional 20% of EU funding within this current mandate. (AQO 6896/11-15)

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

The Programme for Government target is a Northern Ireland Executive target to facilitate the increased drawdown of competitive European funds by the end of March 2015, though all Departments will work collaboratively in relation to that. It is one of a number of Executive European priorities. Others include enhancing the profile of Northern Ireland in Europe, developing and maintaining a network of EU organisations and networks and influencing the development of EU policy.

My Department does not yet have a specific drawdown target because, having taken stock of its position and experience relative to competitive funds, it was not considered appropriate to put forward a target that had no sensible basis.

Over recent years, my Department’s focus has been on facilitating the maximum drawdown for Northern Ireland through fulfilling the role of an accountable Department for the Peace III creating shared public spaces theme. By the end of the programme in December 2015, we will have helped to deliver 18 capital projects to the value of €101 million.

Participation in EU competitive funding programmes cannot easily happen in a short time frame. The Department has had no obvious involvement in European competitive funds or networks; therefore, we have focused on building capacity. We have also raised awareness of funding opportunities with our partners in the voluntary and community sector. We are entering a new round of EU programmes and will examine those very closely for opportunities.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he accept that additional funding can be drawn down from European funds to assist with tackling disadvantage?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

This is an area that I have a particular interest in, given my past interest in European issues. At times, there has, rightly, been criticism of the way in which we focused and delivered European money in Northern Ireland. However, look at the capital projects under the Peace III creating shared spaces programme. In fact, some are in the Member's constituency, including the collaboration between Fermanagh District Council and Monaghan County Council on the Peace Link project at Clones and the Termon project in Tullyhommon and Pettigo. Many of those projects have contributed immensely and will continue to contribute. The Orange interpretative and education resource centres are also being funded through that process. Last Friday, I was in Londonderry at the launch of the commencement of building work on the Heroes of the Great Siege Shared History and Visitors Centre. That is another example of how that money can be used.

I take the Member's point and agree that we can do more. I have had discussions with my officials. You will be aware that the programme is being considered by the Commission. One of the pillars under which the programme will be delivered is young people and education, and I believe that there is more that we can do to ensure that we maximise the money that we receive from these funds. However, it is not only about maximising it; we must ensure that we focus and deliver it in a way that gives tangible benefit to the young people and communities in Northern Ireland.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

Previous targets have been set for domestic energy efficiency to secure match funding from Europe. Will the Minister provide an update on those projects?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

On the specific issue of targets, we have analysed funding calls regularly and disseminated that information through partner search to third party organisations. I do not have the information about the specific element that the Member referred to, but I assure him that I will write to him and provide an update.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his answers so far, particularly in relation to European funding. Will he outline the opportunities that he thinks exist in the next round of Peace IV funding?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

That follows on from the comments that I made to Mr Lynch. The main objective of the draft Peace IV programme is to promote social and economic stability in eligible regions, particularly through actions that will support good relations between communities. If ever we needed to ensure that that is the case in Northern Ireland, that is something that we need to continue to work at and strive towards.

The work that my Department leads on, regeneration and community development, can be greatly enhanced by the additional resources of somewhere in the region of €269 million that the programme brings. I will be seeking to maximise the benefits of the programme for communities that my Department works most closely with, given the relationship that my Department has with the community and voluntary sector. My Department will also play a key role in the implementation and the continuation of shared spaces, and I made reference to that already when I mentioned the capital projects. The theme there to build on many of the projects has been delivered in the current project.

In addition, other themes can contribute to our work to address poverty and to promote inclusion. As I said, my Department will work with communities to bring forward imaginative and effective proposals under the children and young people theme, so that they can avail themselves of the opportunities for improved access to education, employment and training.

I think that this is an example of how we could do joined-up government in a very focused way. Yes, as for the opportunities, the pot of money that we have, in real terms, is not what it was from the various Peace programmes in previous years. However, all Members around the House will be able to identify, in their own local community, projects that have been put in place as a result of the focus that there has been on European funding. I am having those conversations with my officials, and I look forward to being able to bring more positive news in the not-too-distant future.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin agus seo í mo cheist. In the event of the successful drawdown of additional funding, can the Minister ensure that match funding will be available, where appropriate?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I am glad to tell the Member that I am not the Finance Minister. Obviously, the Member will be well aware that the issue of ensuring that, when you have an allocation, you get match funding can become pretty challenging in the current economic circumstances and with the Budget pressures that we will face over the next few years. However, I will do all that I can in the responsibilities that I have in my Department to ensure, as I think we have demonstrated in the past, that there is a very healthy injection of finance from the Department in relation to some of the projects that I have mentioned in the House today.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

4. asked the Minister for Social Development what proposals he has developed to ensure that Northern Ireland is able to mitigate the impact of welfare reform. (AQO 6897/11-15)

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

This is where two minutes is totally and absolutely inadequate, however we will endeavour to give the Member as full a response as we possibly can. I thank the Member for the question, which is very timely. Hopefully, we will develop that as we proceed.

A package of measures has been developed to take account of the views of the Executive subcommittee on welfare reform, the Social Development Committee and a wide range of other stakeholders, with the key objective of continuing to protect the most vulnerable. Members are already aware that the following payment flexibilities have been secured for payment of universal credit in Northern Ireland: all claimants will receive twice-monthly payments; a range of options will be available to split the single household payment; and the housing element of universal credit will be paid directly to landlords, ensuring that people remain safe in their tenancies and that social housing provision has a firm financial basis.

The Member will also be aware that, yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet Church leaders, and I thought that that was a useful and very valuable opportunity for me not only to have a discussion with them but, more importantly, for me to listen to the concerns that they brought. In my response to the Church leaders, I have set out in a letter, which is now on my Department's website and in the public domain, the elements in the package that had been agreed: the split universal credit payments; the direct payment of universal credit to landlords; social sector size criteria, which is commonly called the bedroom tax; the issue of sanctions; joint claims; medical evidence for personal independence payments; lone parent flexibility; the discretionary support scheme, and so we could go on.

The Member will have all of that information available to him, as will all Members. I believe that that is valuable and that it will help us to inform the current debate.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for a very detailed response. Like others, I welcome the new Minister to the Dispatch Box this afternoon, as I welcomed him to the best constituency in Northern Ireland, last week, when he was on a visit to Newtownards and Ballynahinch. Further to his answer, what efforts is the Minister making to engage with the business community about the importance of an agreed way forward on this very important subject? You informed the Assembly that you engaged with the religious community yesterday.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

The Member makes a valid point in relation to the business community. We all have a vested interest in having a resolution to this issue. No one needs think that, somehow, they can get out of the responsibility that they have, collectively, to bring about a solution.

I thank the Member for his words of welcome. I was glad to be in his constituency, and I look forward to visiting the constituency in the future. The issue of welfare reform has become vitally important, because I believe that, over the last number of weeks and months, we have lost sight of an informed discussion. There has been a lot of rancour, and a huge amount of concern. I will in no way underestimate or try to minimise the genuine concerns that many have about the changes to welfare.

I made this point to the Church leaders yesterday: I do not want people thinking that, somehow, I just have to say a few words that will satisfy everybody that I have ticked a box and that those words will not bear any resemblance to what can be done. I believe that good work has been done. I believe that the subcommittee, the Committee for Social Development and the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) have done good work. That is why I went to speak to the Church leaders, and I plan to speak at the NICVA conference next week. I will take the point that the Member has made in relation to engagement with the business community, and I will follow that through with those who have a voice from that very important sector.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the Minister outline what impact the non-application of welfare reform will have on necessary repairs to the Housing Executive stock?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I think the Member wanted to ask me about the package of measures and the concern that we have around significant changes to the welfare system in Northern Ireland. Do we believe that those measures will ensure that we will continue to keep the focus on those people in our community who have concerns and problems?

I know that issues have been raised with me about people who have a disability, people who have problems in relation to disability living allowance (DLA) and people who have problems regarding other elements of welfare reform. I can assure the House, not just the Member, that I am listening and genuinely interested in ensuring that we do not use the poor and those who have challenges and issues as some political pawn, as was said yesterday.

Equally, I want the House to grasp a point. Many families in Northern Ireland are trapped in the benefits system and, currently, that system does not allow them the flexibility to exit the process. I believe that the removal of the 16 hours a week is an example of how people can be given an exit from dependency on a benefit and huge opportunities to get into work, become more socially mobile and make, and continue to make, an invaluable contribution, first and foremost, to their families and, secondly, to the wider community.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Roy Beggs, very quickly.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. The Minister mentioned mitigation. Can he detail the cost of mitigation that he foresees in the first year? How will that be funded, given the current financial difficulties that exist in the Executive?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

It does not matter what you propose to do, if you put in place the cost of mitigation, there will be a cost. If you look at the proposals that my party has put forward in a paper to the Secretary of State, you will see that there is a cost identified in a transitional fund around the £30 million mark. There is obviously a cost that had previously been associated with the implementation of the Northern Ireland plus. You could be talking in the region of an additional £40 million or £50 million. There is no doubt that that creates a challenge.

The Member is right. In the current economic climate, we face a challenge to find additional money, or, at least, to take money from our current resources to implement this piece of legislation. I think, however, that that is money well spent. Let us remember, and the First Minister made the point yesterday from this Dispatch Box, and I think that I need to reiterate the concern that he expressed in this House: collective failure on our part to resolve this issue can ultimately lead to the doors being closed in this institution. I know that Members will say, "Here we go again threatening", but in any of the conversations that I have had in Northern Ireland or in the rest of the United Kingdom, there is a clear expectation that failure to resolve this issue will have serious consequences. The financial cost to Northern Ireland of the imposition of non-amended welfare reform is incalculable, as well as the impact that it would have in all the communities that we represent in this House.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

That ends the period for listed questions. I know that you are really looking forward to topical questions.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

T1. asked the Minister for Social Development for an update on the development and regeneration of Lower North Street, Garfield Street and Royal Avenue in Belfast. (AQT 1651/11-15)

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I think that all those issues have been given priority. In relation to the transfer of those powers, there will be elements that will transfer to local councils, and many have had concerns in relation to that issue. I will give the Member a written response on that because I do not have the detail, but I hope that we will be able to get more detail to the Member later.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. The Minister will be aware that the delay in the development is having wider negative implications for development in other parts of Belfast city centre. Can he give the House an assurance that he is proactively trying to deal with the matter?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes, I can. As the Member can appreciate, a variety of issues has come across my desk in the past three weeks since I came into office, which, I believe, need to be given serious consideration as to the way in which my Department has interacted with other agencies and providers. There is a tendency to believe that, somehow, it can be delivered solely by one Department. I have found more and more, and I am sure that the Member will not be in any way surprised to hear, that a challenge for me on this issue and on other issues relating to housing, regeneration or development is ensuring that those partners have the same focus, the same intention and the same outcome that I have.