Northern Ireland Assembly, 2 March 2015

304 contributions from 64 members. The official report.

Ministerial Statement

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

The First Minister wishes to make a statement.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Mr Speaker, I want to make a statement to the Assembly on recent decisions reached by the Executive on the names and functions of future Departments.

There is a commitment in the Programme for Government to agree changes to the structures of government that will operate in the next Assembly mandate. One of the areas covered by last year's political talks was institutional reform. The Stormont House Agreement of 23 December 2014 included a commitment that the number of Departments should be reduced from 12 to nine in time for the 2016 Assembly election, with the new allocation of departmental functions to be agreed by the parties. Given the pressing timescale, it was important that early decisions were made on the names and functions of the future Departments. The matter was discussed in January by the party leaders, convened in an implementation group set up to follow through on the Stormont House Agreement commitments. Furthermore, the Executive discussed departmental reorganisation extensively at no fewer than four meetings during January and February. Those discussions concluded at last Thursday's Executive meeting. I am now able to announce the decisions that have been reached on the departmental structures coming into operation next year.

The following will be the nine future Departments.

The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs will bring together most of the existing functions of DARD with the inland fisheries functions of DCAL and most of DOE's environmental functions, including regulation. It will also take on OFMDFM's current policy responsibility for sustainability strategy.

The Department for Communities will combine the existing functions of DSD with most DCAL functions, with the exceptions being inland fisheries and waterways. It will also take over DEL's employment service and DOE's responsibilities for local government and built heritage. In addition, the future Department will assume a range of OFMDFM delivery and operational functions on the social investment fund, racial equality, united communities and good relations, disability and poverty, gender and sexual orientation, and north-west sites and strategy.

The Department for the Economy will combine the functions of DETI and DEL, except for the employment service.

The Department of Education will continue the existing functions of DE, together with a range of children’s services, including OFMDFM’s policy responsibilities for the childcare strategy and for children and young people. The definition of children’s services transferring to this new Department will need further refinement, though it is agreed that child protection will remain with the Department of Health.

The Department of Finance will continue with the existing functions of DFP, but also take over from OFMDFM the government advertising unit and the NI Direct central editorial team.

The Department of Health will continue the existing functions of DHSSPS, except for public safety. It will also take on OFMDFM’s policy responsibilities for older people and the active ageing strategy.

The Department for Infrastructure will exercise the existing responsibilities of DRD, but will also take on a range of functions from other existing Departments: vehicle regulation, road safety and Driver and Vehicle Agency functions from DOE; the Rivers Agency from DARD; inland waterways from DCAL; and, from OFMDFM, the strategic investment unit and several regeneration sites, including the Crumlin Road Gaol.

The Department of Justice will continue the existing functions of DOJ, but will also take responsibility for public safety from DHSSPS, and the support function for the Planning Appeals Commission/Water Appeals Commission from OFMDFM.

Finally, our Department, OFMDFM, will be significantly transformed. Its new name will be the Executive Office. As is clear from the previous description of the functions of the other Executive Departments, OFMDFM will be transferring most of its delivery functions. It will retain its role in supporting the Executive and the central institutions, including coordination of the Programme for Government, international relations, civil contingencies and the executive information service. Policy responsibility and coordination will remain in relation to equality, good relations, the Together: Building a United Community strategy and Delivering Social Change. Sponsorship and support for a number of key institutions will also be retained, notably the Attorney General’s Office, the Equality Commission, the Commissioner for Public Appointments, the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission, the historical institutional abuse inquiry, the Maze/Long Kesh Development Corporation, the Victims and Survivors Service and the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors.

That, then, is the general shape of the future departmental system as agreed by the Executive. It will be subject to further refinement of details as work proceeds on the legislative implementation of these decisions.

These are machinery of government changes. No functions are being done away with and no policies terminated. Staff will follow functions, and there may be a certain amount of early disruption. However, once the changes have been effected, there will undoubtedly be greater efficiency. There will be fewer Ministers and departmental hierarchies. Permanent secretaries, central management units, press offices and support functions can all be rationalised.

This will be administratively challenging, but a broadly based programme board has been established to set direction and oversee implementation. The Executive have also agreed the drafting of a Departments Bill and a Transfer of Functions Order to provide a legislative basis for these changes. We aim to introduce the Departments Bill to the Assembly after the Easter recess. A more detailed Transfer of Functions Order will be available for Assembly scrutiny later this year. There will be extensive opportunity for the Assembly to consider and debate these changes.

This will be the most extensive reorganisation of the departmental system since 1999. It provides an opportunity for a leaner, more joined-up Administration, with improved cohesion between, and within, Departments. This should mean ultimately greater efficiency in our Administration and improved services to our citizens.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I welcome the First Minister's statement and the commitment to deliver on this important Stormont House Agreement commitment. The Minister talks about a significant transformation in his own Department. He will be aware that OFMDFM is sometimes ridiculed for having more staff than 10 Downing Street or the west wing of the White House. I wonder what the implications are for staffing, as OFMDFM becomes the Executive Office and sheds its delivery functions.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am grateful for the question, not least because it allows me to ridicule those who make the comparison between the White House and a delivery Department, which is what OFMDFM was, with hundreds of staff acting as a full Department rather than just as an Executive office. It will be massively transformed; the staff complement will be significantly reduced. Only at a later stage will we be able to indicate precisely what that division will be, but, after this change, it will be one of the most effective and efficient organisations that one could possibly imagine.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the First Minister for his statement. Can the First Minister indicate what the rationale is for a single name for most Departments?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I think that my friend will be aware that literally hundreds of functions are carried out by Departments. We went through this at the Executive meeting, and each of the Departments would have maybe 10 major functions outlined if one were to give standing to each of those elements. We tried where possible — for most of the Departments, it was possible — to get some generic title that would cover the range of functions that they will hold. The one Department for which it was not quite possible to do that was the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs because it is very hard to get a generic term that will cover each of those sometimes diverse functions. It is to make it less confusing. It will take some time, I suppose, for everybody to get used to which Department carries out various functions, but, as no functions have been terminated, no policies have been brought to an end and all the functions of government will still go on, I think that the easier that the title is for people to remember, the better.

Bronwyn McGahan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the First Minister for his statement. Minister, do you feel that the reduction in Departments will help to reduce the silo mentality that exists in the Departments?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Yes, I think that the silo mentality is worsened because of the system of government that we have. The Departments almost take on a party flavour. You talk about Sinn Féin Departments or DUP Departments or SDLP, Alliance or Ulster Unionist Departments, and people should be focused on what is actually being delivered by those Departments. Whatever we do here, the purpose of it is not simply some moving around of the responsibilities that each of the parties will have; this is about getting a proper, efficient, functioning Executive. I think that the longer that the Executive work together the more that we will be able to get that collectivity that is necessary in the Executive and the more that people will look at the overall picture. Indeed, from St Andrews, it has been necessary, I think, for Ministers in a Department to win support from their colleagues for any novel, contentious or cross-cutting issue. I think that that adds to the collective responsibility that we each have one to the other.

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

I thank the First Minister for his statement. Which new Department and which new Minister will in future be responsible for strategic planning and taking article 31 decisions? Given that you have said that the numbers of staff in OFMDFM will be significantly reduced, can you indicate, in round terms, whether that will be 40%, 50% or 60%? Will that extend to the number of special advisers — SpAds — that OFMDFM enjoys?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I think that the remaining planning functions go to the Department for Infrastructure. I cannot tell you who the Minister will be because these will take effect after the next Assembly election.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

It could be you.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It may well be that we will have 100% of the seats, and, therefore, I could perhaps give you a name. Whoever the Minister is, I think that you will have a much more coherent Department with all the infrastructure issues being dealt with together.

This will reduce the number of Ministers.

It may have an impact on the number of junior Ministers. Some larger Departments might argue that they have a better case for a junior Minister than the Executive Office. The SpAds will follow the Ministers wherever they go, but there will be fewer special advisers because of the reduced number of Departments. That should bring joy to some people in the House at least.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I welcome progress on the important Stormont House commitment to improve the effectiveness of the Northern Ireland Executive. Will the First Minister provide an update on the Stormont House commitment to deliver an independent audit of the cost of division to all Departments to ensure service delivery that promotes sharing over separation in Northern Ireland?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

As we are dealing with a specific issue about Departments and functions, that does not exactly sit alongside it. However, an implementation group has been set up as a result of the Stormont House Agreement, and the leaders of each party and some of their colleagues are on it. If the Member feels that progress is not fast enough, I am sure that he will get the ear of his party leader and tell him that he is not moving fast enough.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the First Minister for his statement to the House this afternoon. You reiterated that no functions are being done away with and no policies are being terminated, so do you expect financial savings when the changes take place?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Unquestionably, there will be savings, which might come to the Assembly as well as to the Executive. When you cut out three private offices, three permanent secretaries and their staff and all the paraphernalia of government that goes with them, there are savings to be made. If you have nine rather than 12 Committees covering Departments, I am sure that the Assembly will also offer money back to my colleague the Minister of Finance on the savings that will be made here.

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

I thank the First Minister for his statement. With the proposed disappearance of DCAL, there is an obvious point to be made about the role of arts and sport in our community. That will be absorbed in the Department for Communities, but would it not have been more appropriate to have included, together with communities, a reference to the arts and sport, given their central importance?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I mentioned to my colleague that there are hundreds of functions of government, and I am sure that all Assembly Members will have their own view of what the real priorities are. However, if one were to look at the Department for Communities and add "arts" to the title, is the Member saying that that is more important than housing; urban regeneration; the Social Security Agency; child maintenance services; the voluntary and community sector; museums; libraries; creativity and architecture; language; cultural diversity; sport; the Public Record Office; employment services; local government; the social investment fund; and racial equality? I could go on and on. If the argument is that arts is more important than all those issues, the Member can ask the question, but I do not believe that it is more important than many of those issues. That is why a generic title serves the Department much better.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the First Minister for his statement to the House this afternoon. If changes are being made to the number of Departments for 2016, why are we waiting until 2021 to change the number of MLAs?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

After over a decade of my party arguing for a reduction in the number of Departments, I do not want my joy to be dampened in any way now that that is crystallising in the Assembly. We also want a reduction in the number of Assembly Members.

During the talks process, my party argued that it should be down to somewhere in the region of 70. We were prepared to compromise in the region of 90. At the end of the day, the Stormont House Agreement said that it would be reduced to 90 by 2021, but it could be done for 2016 and would still be within the terms set out in the agreement. I hope that, in the implementation group the party leaders are in, we can convince people that a faster timetable is possible. There is no legislative reason why it could not be done, there would be significant savings and it would make the Assembly more in line, though not entirely in line, with the representation in Scotland and Wales. The Assembly is still two or three times as large, per head of the population, as Scotland and Wales. I think everybody recognises that it needs to be done, and I hope we have sufficient stability here for people to think that this is the right time to do it.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I find this fascinating. It will be great to see the Department of the Economy coming on board, which I think was Lord Empey's idea many years ago.

Will the Executive move on from being a two-party system or, using the implementation groups, will it move to involving all parties in the consensus that we are working towards, particularly in how we link with the Government at Westminster to deal with the reserved matters that affect us? We do not seem to have any suitable links for pulling things together.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Far be it from me to remind the Member that it was his party that created the system. We have been able to refine and improve it as time has gone on, but it should not be a two-party system. We have a full-time implementation body: it is called the Executive. All the Executive parties are there, and all take part in the discussions that we have and the decisions that are made. I hope that, as time goes on, the smaller parties — I have to point out that not all of the three smaller parties are in the same category on this — recognise that they have a responsibility to their colleagues in the Executive to take the position that is collectively agreed, rather than trying to score party political points outside and look for issues where they can try to undermine the two main parties. The onus is not on the two main parties but on those who choose to separate themselves from an Executive decision.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

My question could be partially answered, but could I ask the First Minister whether any consideration has been given to the role of junior Ministers?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Junior Ministers were thought to be necessary in OFMDFM because, unknown to a number of people — at least if they know, they have not let on — OFMDFM takes in the broad range of work of all of the government Departments and therefore, both in terms of special advisers and the need for junior Ministers, it is recognised that there is a considerable workload across the range of government responsibilities. We will maintain all the strategic roles, issues and functions of OFMDFM, but we will have a much more strategic role, rather than a delivery role. That will allow greater coordination between Departments in the future. I indicated in my statement that this was the broad outline of what we wanted to do.

It was necessary for us to have agreement on what the Departments would be and what they would be called because we have to start preparing the legislation. We can refine the functions further. There is still room for us to discuss some of those issues. We still have not decided whether junior Ministers are needed in the new Executive Office, whether they should go to other Departments and whether there is a view that, because more business will be carried out by other Departments, they have a greater call for a junior Minister. Those issues have not been decided. The responsibility for that lies with the deputy First Minister and me. We have the sole responsibility under the legislation for determining whether there are junior Ministers and where they should be. The deputy First Minister and I will discuss that in the future.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I welcome the Minister's statement, particularly the inclusion of "Environment" in the new Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. However, given the recent examples of us facing imminent risk of infraction fines over horse mussels in Strangford lough due to the opposing objectives of DARD and DOE, what safeguards will be put in place to ensure that the interests of the agriculture and fishing industries will not trump the protection of the environment?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The safeguard is in the hands of the Minister, the Committee and those who have the responsibility. I would have thought that having the two of them in the one Department allows for greater coordination and hopefully a greater understanding of the pros and cons of each issue. Ultimately, the responsibility lies, as it always has, with a Minister, and the responsibility for calling that Minister to account lies, as it always has, with a departmental Committee set up by the Assembly.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the First Minister for his statement. Can he clarify if it is necessary to wait until after 2016 to make changes to OFMDFM functions?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The present timetable requires us to get a Bill through the House so that it becomes a Departments Act and to get a functions order through the Assembly. If we were to decide to reallocate the functions of any Department — the Member mentions OFMDFM's delivery functions — it could be done legally and it could be done within the time that is allocated. I am not sure that there is a great advantage in making that change for what would probably end up being about eight or nine months, because you would be spreading those amongst the 11 existing Departments, as opposed to the eight other Departments that would be in place after the election. While it could be done, I do not see any real advantage in doing it, and it seems that the election and a new Assembly is the right time for the complete change to take place.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The cost savings that will result from this exercise are important during a time of financial restraint, but the real goal is to achieve much more efficient, joined-up and effective delivery of government. Can the First Minister outline how he believes this change will help us to move away from the silo mentality of separate Departments and lead to more strategic joined-up decision-making and policies?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

My friend is entirely correct in indicating what the purpose and value of the changes will be. While the silo mentality is ultimately in the minds of individuals as opposed to the structure of any Department, the fact that there will be fewer Departments obviously makes it easier for coordination and cooperation between them. There is also greater recognition that, as we mature as an Assembly, we need to look towards joined-up government and that Departments, even when you reduce them to the number that we have, will still have overlap and will still have the necessity to work with each other. I hope that the silo mentality will be removed from the minds of Ministers. The reductions that we have had and the savings that will flow from them are entirely in line with what we have been attempting to do at a time of great financial difficulty.

Of course, I recognise, and I should put on record, that we are putting a significant burden on our Civil Service, which is already having to handle significant change as a result of the reduction in size of the public service. This requires very careful work to ensure that front-line services are not adversely affected and will also involve moving staff around Departments. The Civil Service will therefore be under very considerable pressure over the next number of months, and we should put on record our appreciation. We can take a decision at an Executive meeting, in an implementation body or at Stormont House, but civil servants have to do the work on the ground to put it in place.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Reducing the Departments to nine is good, as far it goes; but I am more interested in democratising the appointment of Ministers to Departments. We are about to have a general election. If the Stormont system applied, Cameron, Milliband and Clegg would all end up in Downing Street, and there would be no Opposition. How absurd that would be — how unworkable, as this place demonstrates. When will we bring into line with the rest of the democratic world the way in which we appoint Ministers?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

When the Member joins with me and is able to convince other colleagues in this House that a voluntary coalition is the right way to go. I went to Stormont House, and I argued for that; however, we came out with the highest level of agreement possible. I recognise entirely that, as time goes on, we have to democratise and normalise the Assembly much more, and that can only be done if we get something akin to the system that we had at Westminster. I am not sure that his analogy was the best in the present circumstances: who knows who will be in the next Government of the United Kingdom?

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

How can the new Department of Education protect other children's services, particularly early years services for children before they start school, given the draw on resources by schools?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

This statement does not go into the allocation of funding. What will happen, I suspect, is that the Finance Minister, when looking at future Budgets, will look at the funds received for the various functions and pass them on to the new Department responsible. There will always be a call for more money for every element of government. Indeed, I could have argued a long time ago that children's functions should have gone to the Department of Education. It has now been recognised that all children's services, excepting those that relate to health, will be in the Department of Education, which is the right place for them in my view.

In terms of the finance, I hope that, when we come to the Budget, a more responsible attitude will be taken by some people in this House, who simply want to vote against a Budget, no matter what it is. When you allocate funds, it is always easy to look at the various permutations, but the hard decision has to be taken, and, in circumstances where our Budget has been massively reduced over the last number of years because of decisions taken by the coalition Government, those decisions become harder and harder. By saving money, by reducing the number of Departments and their staff, we are taking a further step to the reform of public services that my colleague is taking forward.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I ask the First Minister about silos and finances. As the First Minister will be aware, in-year monitoring rounds are important for the efficient management of government, but many of the surrenders of funds are complicated by historical factors. Some can be transferred within a Department; others must go back to the centre. When we amalgamate certain Departments, will he give an undertaking that we will ensure that we can do interdepartmental funding without having to return funds to the centre?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

My advice to the Finance Minister would be not to do that. To give any Minister the ability to move money around the various functions in a Department would be a retrograde step. The Executive, collectively, need to make the determination on each of the heads of expenditure and be satisfied that that is the right balance. It would be wrong for any Minister to take it out of balance.

As we go through a year, there will be circumstances where, if there are savings in one area, the Finance Minister can allocate them to other Departments or give flexibility to a Minister to use those savings in his or her Department. My view is that we are far better having a system where everything comes back to the centre and is reallocated. On that basis, you can look at a priority in a Department as opposed to what the priority might be in another Department; that is how money should be allocated.

When we enter a new Assembly and a new CSR period, all previous bets are off; it will be up to the Executive to take the decision about how funds are allocated in-year as well as over the Budget period.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

I welcome the reduction in the number of Departments, but it acknowledges the Departments' failure to work together for efficiency and the betterment of Northern Ireland. How will the First Minister encourage his Executive to start working together right now so that we can hit the ground running when the changes are made?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

There needs to be an open and honest acknowledgement that no politician in their right senses would have produced a government with 12 Departments, as was done here. It was done for entirely political reasons; it was done to have the maximum number of people in the Executive so that there would be a share-out to parties that were smaller than the main parties. It was done, no doubt, for the best of intentions; it was important to get as wide a buy-in to the process as possible.

None of that, whether it is nine Departments or 12, should stop colleagues working together effectively and efficiently. We are from different Departments, and there are coalitions that are much less successful than ours elsewhere in the world, including some not too far from where we are. There are difficulties in operating a coalition of any form. To have a mandatory coalition, where you are put into an Executive not because you have common views but because you have a percentage of the vote, shows just how difficult it is to operate. Much more credit should be given to the fact that, in spite of the massive ideological differences amongst the parties, they have been able to work to the level that they have together and that they have been able to reach some significant agreements.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I give a general welcome to the new departmental layout. I see savings and efficiencies coming from it, and there will also be an opportunity for better coordination to meet the needs of people. In terms of the operational aspects of the social investment fund, which are transferring to the Department of the community, which is largely built on DSD, is that a recognition of the delays in setting up the social investment fund and getting moneys out on the ground, and the inefficiency of having that duplication of service that already exists under DSD and local government?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It is the same recognition that there is with every other delivery function that is being taken out of OFMDFM. We want to make the new Executive office a strategic Department rather than a delivery Department. That makes sense for the overview that we have and the role that we have of coordinating the Executive. It also makes sense because it is bound to be easier for one Minister to take a decision than it is for two Ministers to take a decision, no matter how agreeable they might be. The fact is that we have removed most, if not all, the delivery functions from the Executive office to make it a Department that will have a strategic overview of all the Executive's work, and, particularly, some of the issues that are allocated to it in policy terms.

Executive Committee Business

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I beg to introduce the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [NIA 46/11-16], which is a Bill to amend the law relating to special education and disability discrimination in schools.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I beg to move

That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Health and Social Care (Safety and Quality) Bill, as introduced in the House of Commons on 2 July 2014, contained in clause 5 and paragraphs 1 to 6 of the schedule dealing with the objectives of regulators of health and social care professionals.

In July of last year, the Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt MP, wrote to former Minister Poots seeking his agreement to a legislative consent motion (LCM) on provisions contained in a private Member's Bill that was introduced in Westminster in that same month by Jeremy Lefroy, the MP for Stafford. The full title of the Bill is the Health and Social Care (Safety and Quality) Bill, and it has a wide patient-safety theme following on from the events at the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust.

At the outset, it is important to say that the vast majority of the provisions in the Bill apply to England only. Members will be aware that any Westminster Bill that seeks to introduce changes that relate to a devolved matter must be agreed by the Assembly by means of a legislative consent motion. One provision in the Bill relates to the regulation of health-care professionals, which is a devolved matter for Northern Ireland. A legislative consent motion is therefore required for the provision. It is that provision to which I now want to draw Members' attention.

The provision seeks to introduce an overarching public-protection objective for health-care professional regulators — for example, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the General Dental Council — and the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care, which oversees the work of the health-care regulators. It is intended that the provision will apply on a UK-wide basis. That is because, with the exception of pharmacy, the jurisdiction of the health-care professional regulators is UK-wide, as is the jurisdiction of the Professional Standards Authority.

The clause introduces an overarching objective of public protection, with further objectives relating to public safety, public confidence in the professions and proper professional standards, each of which are of equal importance. There is well-established case law setting out the expectation that regulators and their fitness-to-practise panels will consider those objectives. However, the Bill seeks to establish those explicitly and consistently in statute. In practice, that will give regulators a clear and consistent legal basis on which to act with confidence to ensure the protection of the public.

The approach of having an overarching public-protection objective, together with the three related objectives, secures the focus on public protection that regulators were keen to emphasise, while also ensuring that regulatory bodies are able to act, where appropriate, in the absence of any explicit patient-safety issue; for example, where a registrant has engaged in behaviour that might undermine public confidence in the profession to such a degree that it would make the public reluctant to seek that individual's help but where the issue is not related to professional competence or patient safety. The Bill also requires the regulators' panels and committees dealing with fitness-to-practise issues to have regard to the objectives. That will help contribute to ensuring ongoing public confidence in the professional regulatory system.

The Department of Health in England has confirmed that the Professional Standards Authority and the regulators affected are content with the regulatory provisions in the Bill. However, those bodies' general position is that the private Member's Bill does not go far enough, as the legal framework governing regulation of health-care professionals requires more significant reform.

Members will be aware that the United Kingdom law commissions, including the Northern Ireland Law Commission, jointly undertook a review of the regulation of health-care professionals. They published their final report, together with a draft Bill, in April 2014, and a copy of that Bill was laid before the Assembly. The aim of the work was to make recommendations for a clear, modern and effective legal framework for now and for the future. In fact, the regulatory provisions in the private Member's Bill are derived from two of the commissions' key recommendations. The regulators and the Professional Standards Authority are eager for the commissions' reforms to be implemented as a priority.

On 29 January 2015, the UK Government issued a joint response to the commissions' report on behalf of the four United Kingdom Health Ministers. In the response, the Government accepted the large majority of the recommendations whilst acknowledging that further work will be required in some other areas. Government officials, including those from my Department, will continue to work constructively with the Department of Health in England, the other devolved Administrations and the bodies affected to progress those issues.

The response highlighted again that the UK Government remain committed to legislate in this important area when parliamentary time allows. In the interim, a number of pieces of secondary legislation have been introduced UK-wide to improve the regulatory bodies’ processes in order to enhance patient safety and improve public confidence. The regulatory measure included in the private Member's Bill seeks to build on that.

Members should note that the private Member's Bill will not introduce the overarching public protection objective for either the General Medical Council, which regulates doctors on a UK-wide basis, or the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland, which regulates pharmacists in Northern Ireland only. With regard to the Pharmaceutical Society, the Department of Health in England identified issues with applying the overarching public protection objective provision to the society. Whilst legislative amendments in 2012 enabled an enhanced role in public protection and regulatory activity for the society, its current objectives, set out in the Pharmacy (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, are more reflective of a leadership and membership organisation rather than one focused on public protection. Therefore, introduction of the new proposed public protection objective would represent a fundamental change to the society’s statutory basis.

I agree with the position taken by my ministerial colleague in England, and the Bill is not an appropriate vehicle to introduce such a change to the arrangements for regulation for the pharmacy profession in Northern Ireland. I also understand that the society has not raised any objections to its exclusion from the Bill.

I can also advise Members that I have asked departmental officials to begin preparatory work to explore options for the future arrangements for the regulation of the pharmacy profession in Northern Ireland. That will include consideration of the existing professional leadership role of the Pharmaceutical Society. I will continue to keep the Assembly and the Health Committee updated on that as work develops.

In relation to the General Medical Council, the overarching public protection objective will be introduced through a different UK-wide legislative order, which is being taken forward.

In conclusion, the UK Governments, including my Department, support the Bill as it relates to the regulation of health-care professionals. As this is a devolved matter, a legislative consent motion is required. It is important that the provisions extend to Northern Ireland to ensure that we retain parity with the rest of the United Kingdom in that regard so that the public in Northern Ireland can be assured that they are safeguarded in the same way and afforded the same protections as other UK citizens.

On that basis, I ask the Assembly to support the motion.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I take this opportunity to thank Minister Wells for bringing the LCM to the Assembly today. Speaking on behalf of the Alliance Party, I support the legislative consent motion. It is a somewhat unusual LCM, in that we are lending our support to a private Member's Bill progressing through Westminster. However, given that the UK Government are supporting the Bill and notwithstanding the reality that health care, including the role of health-care workers, is devolved, there is an understanding of maintaining a common framework for regulation across different jurisdictions, especially in the context of greater mobility between jurisdictions and even mobility by patients and those in care. It is important that we do what we can to enhance protection of those who are most vulnerable, maintain public confidence and uphold standards.

With those few words on this important issue, I am happy to relay the Alliance Party's agreement to the LCM.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

With those few words, it is back to the Minister.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I was expecting many more contributions. Maybe they have all been won over by my oratory; I do not know.

I welcome MLA McCarthy's comments. He makes a very valid observation that, more and more within the United Kingdom, patients and medical staff are moving back and forward across the borders of the four jurisdictions. Therefore, it is very important that we have parity and that members of the public in Northern Ireland feel that they have exactly the same regulatory framework as those in England, Scotland and Wales. I am glad to say that the standard of medical care in Northern Ireland is extremely high and the number of referrals to any regulatory body is a very small proportion of the number of engagements with patients. However, we all still need to have the confidence that, if things do go wrong, there is a very effective and rigorous framework in which to deal with it. I welcome the fact that the Member who contributed is supporting the Department in this.

As I said, the Bill will introduce a consistent overarching objective for the Professional Standards Authority and the regulators of the affected groups of health-care professionals, including dentists, nurses, midwives and opticians, and will ensure that public protection is at the heart of what the Professional Standards Authority and these professional regulators do. The Bill will contribute to public protection, by providing clarity and consistency across the roles of the PSA and these regulators, and will increase public confidence in the professional regulatory system.

It is important that Northern Ireland continues to retain parity with the rest of the UK in relation to the regulation of health-care professionals. Therefore, I commend the motion to the House. The legislative consent motion came before the Health Committee for scrutiny, and the Committee was broadly supportive of it. I welcome that. I suspect that the fact that the Committee has done much of the scrutiny work already is why this particular legislative consent motion has not attracted a great deal of debate.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Health and Social Care (Safety and Quality) Bill, as introduced in the House of Commons on 2 July 2014, contained in clause 5 and paragraphs 1 to 6 of the schedule dealing with the objectives of regulators of health and social care professionals.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to move

That the Donaghadee Harbour (Transfer of Harbour Undertaking) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 be affirmed.

The harbour is managed by my Department, overseen by the Donaghadee Harbour Commissioners, who are civil servants from my Department. Two staff, a harbour master and an assistant, are employed directly at the harbour. My Department is not well placed to manage a harbour or to oversee it remotely from Clarence Court. The focus has been on keeping the harbour open and as safe as is practicable, with due regard being given to its special heritage qualities.

More recently, our policy has been to transfer Donaghadee harbour from its current status as a trust port to that of a municipal harbour owned and managed by the relevant local authority. There are firm practical grounds supporting this option. Local councils are already harbour authorities and, therefore, competent to undertake the associated management responsibilities. The transfer would also address the practical difficulties and inefficiencies associated with operating a singleton harbour; for example, in arranging emergency cover and maximising the utilisation of the specialised harbour staff. It would also enable the anachronistic legislation associated with the harbour to be repealed. Sometimes words are easier written than said; I must speak again to my officials.

[Laughter.]

The transfer is linked to the review of public administration proposals and the reorganisation of councils and is, therefore, expected to happen in parallel with those changes from 1 April 2015. The order has been subject to public consultation in accordance with the Department's guidelines. My Department is grateful for the responses that have been received to the consultation and notes that there were no objections to the order.

I am also grateful for the consideration that has been given to the proposal by my Executive colleagues and the Regional Development Committee. The Examiner of Statutory Rules has also considered the order and did not make any formal comments in his ninth report of this session. That has allowed the order to be brought forward to the debate to seek affirmation.

In summary, the order will transfer Donaghadee harbour from the commissioners to North Down and Ards District Council —

[Interruption.]

Ards Borough Council.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

Ards.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Ards and North Down.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

That might become a matter for resignation. I had better correct that.

[Laughter.]

That will include all the functions, property rights, liabilities and obligations. The two members of staff who are employed at the harbour will also transfer to the council, and that will be achieved through the promotion of a transfer scheme. The order will also seek to wind up and dissolve the existing commission. I, therefore, recommend the Donaghadee Harbour (Transfer of Harbour Undertaking) Order to the House.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

The Committee for Regional Development considered the policy for the legislation at its meeting of 10 December 2014 and was content with the merits of the policy. The statutory rule came before members at the meeting of 18 February 2014, and members had no objections to it. The Committee for Regional Development, therefore, supports the motion.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I welcome the detail that the Minister has set out on the proposals. On behalf of Alliance Party council colleagues in the area and businesspeople who have been in touch with me, I seek his assurances that the transfer will be conducted with the harbour in an adequate state of repair.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the members and Chair of the Regional Development Committee for their positive support and the scrutiny that they have undertaken. I thank the Chair for that. I also indicate to Mr Lyttle that my officials have been in close consultation with council officials to resolve any outstanding issues. We confidently expect those to be resolved in time for the transfer to take legal effect.

I am glad that the House has agreed the transfer of Donaghadee harbour. I am somewhat sorry to see it go. It never had a navy. Nonetheless, I think that the council will be best placed to undertake its management in the future. I wish all the staff involved well and thank them for their contribution.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That the Donaghadee Harbour (Transfer of Harbour Undertaking) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 be affirmed.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

The next item on the Order Paper is a motion to affirm the first of three statutory rules from the Minister of Finance and Personnel.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

That the Rates (Temporary Rebate) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 be affirmed.

Before I deal with the statutory rule, I will set out some background to the measure. The purpose of the legislation is to extend the empty shops rates concession. That was introduced in April 2012 and was subsequently extended for a further two years in April 2013. The concession was introduced as an amendment to the Rates Amendment Act (Northern Ireland) 2012. At that time, a package of measures was introduced to rebalance the rating system to assist ailing businesses and to improve the appearance of our town and city centres.

The empty shops rates concession serves to provide a one-year concession which effectively allows 50% empty property relief to continue for one year when a qualifying property which has been empty for at least one year becomes occupied again.

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

The current legislative provision under article 31D of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, as inserted by the Rates (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2012, permits applications for this concession until 31 March 2015. The window for applications will close soon and, following the success of this scheme, I have made the decision to extend the application period to the end of the current Budget period.

Unfortunately, there remains a need to provide whatever assistance we can to counteract the many shop closures and the effect that this has had on the vitality of our towns and cities. The extension of this concession will allow Land and Property Services (LPS) to continue to receive applications for the scheme up until 31 March 2016.

This scheme has been a huge success. So far, it has seen 375 new businesses get up and running across Northern Ireland. Also, since the scheme was introduced in April 2012, data that was produced by the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium in February 2015 shows that the vacancy rate in Northern Ireland has reduced to 16·3%. Although the picture has improved slightly, I think that there is still a need for a scheme of this type.

The range of businesses that have benefited from the scheme include a fish market in Enniskillen, a children's clothes shop in Larne, a gift shop in Londonderry, a restaurant in Belfast city centre and a hotel in Ballycastle. They all created new jobs for local people.

I feel that this is a policy that makes a real difference to business start-ups, particularly in town centres and on arterial routes. Furthermore, it is a sensible measure in terms of cost. In all likelihood, the Executive would not have been getting any more revenue from these units through rates if they had continued to be empty. Therefore, it is effectively a cost-neutral policy.

Beyond that, after an initial period of reduced liability, these businesses will end up paying full rates after the difficult first year of trading is over, so it may even prove to bring in more money than it costs. Such has been the success of the scheme that similar schemes have now been introduced in all other parts of the United Kingdom. It was this Executive that led the way, having listened to and taken on board ideas from retailers and traders.

My Executive colleagues and members of the Finance and Personnel Committee have been advised on the detail of the statutory rule. The Committee indicated that it was content for applications to be received for the empty shops rates concession until 31 March 2016. Article 1 of the order sets out the citation and commencement. Article 2 provides for the amendment of article 31D of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, substituting the new end date of 31 March 2016.

In conclusion, I look forward to Members' comments and commend the Rates (Temporary Rebate) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 to the House.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

I thank the Minister for his remarks. As has been outlined by the Minister, the purpose of the rule is to amend paragraph 2 of article 31D of the Rates (NI) Order 1977. This would allow an extension for applications to the empty retail premises rate rebates scheme beyond the present March 2015 closing date until the end of the present Budget period in March 2016.

In 2012, the Committee was first advised of the initial proposal to provide 50% relief for one year to a new occupier of an empty shop. The initial scheme was limited to one year so as to reduce any unwanted displacement and minimise any advantage over established traders, and it also allowed the Department to review the success of the scheme during the initial period.

The Department undertook an early review of the scheme in 2013, which indicated that, although there had been a reasonable number of successful applicants throughout the time of the scheme, they were not evenly spread throughout the North and, as a result, the scheme was extended for two years. The purpose of the rule is to provide a further extension of the scheme to the end of this Budget period on 31 March 2016. The Committee formally considered the statutory rule that is before the Assembly at its meeting on 18 February. It also considered the accompanying report from the Assembly's Examiner of Statutory Rules, which raised no issues by way of technical scrutiny.

The Committee agreed to recommend that statutory rule 48/2015, the Rates (Temporary Rebate) (Amendment) Order (NI) 2015, be affirmed by the Assembly. I therefore support the motion.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member, the Chairman of the Committee, for his comments. I agree with him. I believe that this is a scheme that is worth preserving as it has been a major success story for the Department and the Executive.

The Member mentioned the geographical spread of the 375 new premises that have opened as a result of the scheme. I think that we should celebrate the fact that 375, probably fast-approaching 400, as we speak, have been confirmed as using this relief. Those businesses are spread across every district council area of Northern Ireland. I commented on a few in my opening remarks. The bulk of those — 77 — are in the Belfast area, as you would probably expect them to be, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have visited many across Northern Ireland, as did my predecessor, and they do a range of things. That shows the success of the scheme.

The fact that the scheme has been extended for a further year will suggest to Members that the Department and I will do what we can to promote the scheme, but it is also incumbent on Members to promote the scheme in their own areas. By extending the scheme, we can help to ensure that more empty commercial properties are brought back into use, thereby improving the appearance of towns and creating jobs in communities. I ask Members to support the measure. I commend the order to the Assembly.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That the Rates (Temporary Rebate) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 be affirmed.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

That the Rates (Exemption for Automatic Telling Machines in Rural Areas) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 be affirmed.

This scheme was initially introduced in 2007 with the objective of encouraging and sustaining the provision of ATMs in rural areas. It was originally introduced in 2007 for a fixed period of three years, but it has been extended twice, following evaluation. The latest order provides for a further one-year extension for the 2015-16 Budget period until the end of March 2016.

It is not a big policy. It currently provides rates exemption to around 70 ATMs that would otherwise be liable for a separate rates bill of around £2,000 a year, but it is still an important policy for our rural communities. The number of ATMs that get the exemption has increased from 37 to 70 since the scheme was introduced. Perhaps, most importantly, the context has changed. It has done so in such a way that, I believe, this modest measure is even more important today than it was before, because of the closure of many rural bank branches.

If I may, I will outline what the scheme does. The exemption is provided for stand-alone ATMs that are individually valued in the valuation list, such as those located outside petrol stations or on high streets. It does not apply to those located in banks or building societies, which tend to be valued as part of that property.

The current cost of the scheme is around £130,000 in terms of revenue forgone. I consider that to be an affordable sum, given the benefits that it can bring. ATMs play an important role in the sustainability of rural economies. Evidence assessed by my Department demonstrated that money withdrawn locally is spent locally. Of every £10 withdrawn from a cash machine, almost two thirds is spent locally.

I turn now to the statutory rule itself. My Executive colleagues and members of the Finance and Personnel Committee have already been advised on its detail. The Committee indicated that it was content for individual, separately valued ATMs in designated rural areas to continue to be exempt from rates, particularly given the modest cost of the scheme.

Article 1 of the order sets out the citation, commencement and interpretation provisions, and article 2 provides for the extension of the relevant date, before which the scheme must end, to 1 April 2016.

In conclusion, I look forward to Members' comment and commend the Rates (Exemption for Automatic Telling Machines in Rural Areas) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 to the House.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The purpose of this rule is to extend the current rates exemption for any ATM that is assessed separately for rating purposes in a designated rural area from 31 March 2015 to 1 April 2016. ATMs that are located in banks or building societies tend to be valued as part of the property and are therefore not affected.

The exemption initially came into effect in 2007, and policy evaluations carried out in 2009 and 2012 showed increases in the number of rural ATMs. The Committee noted that, at present, Land and Property Services (LPS) has estimated that around 60 ATMs are covered by the scheme. The Department has estimated that the cost of the scheme in 2014-15 is just over £130,000, with an estimated cost of around £2,200 per ATM.

At its meeting on 14 January, the Committee considered the proposal to make the order. During that consideration, several points were raised about which designation of rural areas was being used for the scheme, who exactly assessed which of the machines was stand-alone or part of a building and who exactly would receive the exemption. The Committee was advised that NISRA provided the designation of rural areas, that the professional valuation officers from LPS assessed each ATM and decided whether it fell into the scheme's remit, and that the exemption would go to the individuals or group responsible for the stand-alone ATM.

On a minor technical point that I noted subsequent to the Committee receiving its briefing, perhaps the Minister could clarify why the rule provides for an extension to 1 April 2016, rather than 31 March, as has been the case in previous years.

The Committee was nonetheless satisfied with the Department’s answers to its queries and had no objection to the policy proposals at that time. The formal statutory rule was subsequently considered at the Committee’s meeting on 18 February 2015, together with the accompanying report from the Assembly’s Examiner of Statutory Rules. The Examiner raised no issues by way of technical scrutiny.

The Committee agreed to recommend that the Assembly affirm statutory rule 46/2015, the Rates (Exemption for Automatic Telling Machines in Rural Areas) Order (NI) 2015.

As a rural MLA, I also support the motion on a party basis. I recall, as a councillor and an MLA, lobbying for many years to get ATMs in villages. I am sure that every rural MLA has done the same. This is a very worthwhile proposal. It is worth continuing, as it provides a great service to young and old alike in our countryside villages and towns.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I again thank the Committee Chair for his comments. He raised a couple of issues, one of which I think he already received clarification from officials on, concerning what was designated rural. He is right that it was NISRA that helped to define the designated rural wards where ATMs would benefit from this exemption. When the legislation was first passed in 2007, over 200 wards were prescribed as rural. My Department will be redesignating the wards at the earliest opportunity once, stemming from the ongoing council restructuring, the settlement information is available from NISRA.

He asked about 1 April 2016. There seems to be no particular reason why that, as opposed to 31 March, is there. Perhaps it was thought that a wee change was required to see whether anybody noticed. Far be it from me to pre-empt what the House might do in future, but, as the Member highlighted, this is a good scheme. I do not foresee it disappearing any time soon, particularly at a time when bank branches everywhere are closing, especially in rural areas. I see that Mr McCarthy, Mr Nesbitt and Miss McIlveen are in the House. They and I represent the Strangford constituency, and we know how important this is in places like Portaferry, for example, where we can recall the last remaining bank branch closing. This scheme has helped to retain a stand-alone ATM that belongs to that bank in the village. The proposal is helpful in retaining that important service that I think most of the House appreciates. Even if you do not represent a rural area, you will appreciate the importance of having ATMs and that service in the local area.

By extending the scheme, we can help to ensure that ATMs are retained and perhaps even increased in rural wards, providing greater access and support to those communities.

I ask Members to support the measure, and I commend the order to the Assembly.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That the Rates (Exemption for Automatic Telling Machines in Rural Areas) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 be affirmed.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

That the Rates (Owners Allowances) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 be affirmed.

The final order today is the Rates (Owners Allowances) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015. Before turning to the order itself, I think that it is important to provide Members with some brief context to the statutory rule.

The first point that I make is that the rating system that has served us and previous Administrations for over 160 years is founded on the principle that the occupier pays. That works pretty well, given that rates are a charge for regional and local services. However, there are practical difficulties in strictly adhering to the principle when it comes to rented domestic property, because of the problems associated with recovering unpaid rates from tenants, who tend to move about more in lower- and average-value houses. That is not a new phenomenon, which is why landlord allowances are a long-standing feature of the domestic rating system here. Various discounts are given to landlords in return for collecting rates from tenants and passing them on to Land and Property Services (LPS). It helps revenue collection. At the moment, the allowances vary, depending on whether they relate to compulsory or voluntary landlord liability, and there are differences between the private rented sector and the social rented sector.

Members may well jump to the conclusion of asking why we should give landlords anything by way of discount. I can understand why Members might think that, but I reiterate that, in essence, rates are an occupier-based charge. Even if the landlord is liable to hand over payment to LPS, the tenant still pays the rates through the rent, and the landlord is effectively acting as a collection agent.

There is another key point to make — one that sometimes gets drowned out — which is that landlords' representatives have consistently told us that they do not want anything to do with rate collection. Their preference is to have no liability at all for the payment of rates to the Department, as is the case in the rest of the UK with council tax. Therefore, to impose a duty on a landlord to collect rates, as part of the rent, from the person who lives in the house and not make an allowance for it would represent a major shift in policy. It is not something that we can contemplate without undertaking a lot more research and consultation. For that reason, I wish to initiate a fundamental review of the whole policy area later this year, and I have asked my Department to factor that into its plans.

The order that we are debating today has the effect of creating a unified rate of compensatory allowance across all sectors and categories of liability. It will not affect the level of rates paid by tenants as part of their rent. Under the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, there are two types of landlord liability for domestic property. The first falls under the compulsory liability provisions in article 20 of the 1977 Order. Landlords who fall within that provision must pay the rates on the property. The second falls under article 21 of the 1977 Order. That provision allows landlords to volunteer to pay rates on their property through a formal agreement with Land and Property Services. The landlord allowance is currently 7·5% for compulsory liability landlords. A 12·5% allowance is provided for voluntary liability landlords in the private rented sector, while in the social rented sector it is 10%. The changes that I am taking forward in this order have been informed and supported by a public consultation and are aimed at simplifying the system.

It is appropriate at this point to acknowledge the key role that the Finance Committee played during 2013 and 2014 in a detailed discussion of the issues surrounding the rating of the rental sector. Some of the small but important changes arising from the outcomes of that consultation process were implemented through the Financial Provisions Act (NI) 2014. The provisions in today’s order see the final outcome from that consultation being implemented.

I turn now to the detail of the order. Article 1 sets out the title of the order and gives the operational date as 1 April 2015. Article 2 increases from 7·5% to 10% any allowance given to a property owner who is rated under the compulsory liability provisions in article 20 of the 1977 order. Article 2 also provides that the increase in allowance will not apply to a rate made for a year ending before 1 April 2015. Article 3 then serves to reduce from 12·5% to 10% the maximum allowance that can be given to a property owner who, under article 21 of the 1977 Order, agrees to pay the rates chargeable for a property whether it is occupied or not and who pays those rates on or before the date or dates specified in the agreement.

Article 4 substitutes 10% for any allowance in an existing agreement made under article 21 of the 1977 Order between the Department and a person or body other than a housing association or the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, as housing associations and the Housing Executive already receive a 10% allowance. Article 5 serves to revoke the Rates (Payments by Owners by Agreement) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2011.

I look forward to hearing Members' comments, and I commend the order to the House.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas Cheann Comhairle. The purpose of the rule is threefold. The first aspect is to increase the allowance or discount that the Department provides to landlords — owners — who are subject to compulsory provisions under the Rates (NI) Order 1977.

A landlord who is responsible for rates payments under certain criteria receives an allowance of 7·5% provided that payment is made before 30 September or within one month of billing, whichever is the later. This rule aims to increase that allowance to 10%.

The second aspect is to reduce the maximum allowance, or discount, provided for by a rates payment agreement between the Department and landlords. Landlords whose rent is paid or collected at intervals shorter than quarterly may, by agreement with the Department, undertake to pay the rates chargeable in respect of the hereditament whether it is occupied or not. The Department may agree, where the owners so undertake and pay the Department on or before the date or dates specified in the agreement the amounts payable by him thereunder, to make an allowance not exceeding 12·5%. The order reduces this maximum allowance to 10%.

The rule also seeks to substitute 10% for any allowance in an existing agreement made under the 1977 Order between the Department and a person or body other than a housing association or the Housing Executive.

The formal statutory rule before the Assembly today was considered by the Committee in February, together with the accompanying report from the Assembly’s Examiner of Statutory Rules. The Examiner raised no issues by way of technical scrutiny. The Committee agreed to recommend that the Rates (Owner Allowances) Order (NI) 2015, be affirmed by the Assembly. I, therefore, support the motion.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I was worrying, Mr Deputy Speaker, that a debate might have kicked off.

I thank Mr McKay for his contribution to the debate on behalf of the Committee. I will be very brief. I trust that Members will show the necessary support to the order and back the Committee in its work. Therefore, I commend the order to the Assembly and ask Members to affirm the order before us today.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That the Rates (Owners Allowances) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 be affirmed.

Committee Business

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 3 July 2015, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Children's Services Co-operation Bill [NIA Bill 44/11-16].

As Chair of the Committee, I ask for the support of Members today. The Children’s Services Co-operation Bill passed its Second Stage at the Assembly on 26 January. It was then referred to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister for Committee Stage. We put out a public call for evidence, and we also wrote directly to stakeholders. The closing date was last week. However, written submissions are still being received by the Committee office, and our first oral evidence session in connection with the Bill will be heard by the Committee this week.

The Bill requires Departments to discharge their functions and to cooperate to further the achievement of six high-level outcomes for children and young people. Those are taken from the strategy and are as follows: being healthy; enjoying learning and achieving; living in safety and with stability; experiencing economic and environmental well-being; contributing positively to community and society; and living in a society that respects their rights. The Bill also creates an enabling power to allow Departments to pool budgets.

The Committee received a briefing from the Bill's sponsor, Mr Agnew, on 14 January following the Bill’s introduction, and we also heard from officials from the Department on the same date. Although it is a short Bill, it is clear from the discussions to date that there are a number of issues that require more detailed consideration by the Committee. Indeed, I highlighted some of them during the Second Stage debate. Both Mr Agnew and departmental officials have already signalled potential amendments that could address some of the issues raised, and the Committee expects to be kept fully apprised of developments throughout the Committee Stage.

There is a lot of work to be done, even though it is a short Bill. Indeed, earlier today, the First Minister, in his statement regarding the reconfiguration of Departments, made it clear that there will be some significant impact on the delivery of services for children and young people. We need to take time, as a Committee, to consider the implications of that for Mr Agnew's Bill.

The Committee believes that it is essential that it is afforded more time to fully examine the Bill and to properly exercise its scrutiny role, not just for the Bill but for business coming out of the Committee, which I regard as our primary duty. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee, I ask that the House supports the motion to extend the Committee Stage to 3 July 2015.

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

I obviously support all the comments made by the Committee Chair. I only want to make the point that we have in or around 40 sitting weeks before the end of the mandate. Given the time frame and the points that the Chair has just made in respect of the reconfiguration of the Departments, that certain functions relating to children will be transferred to one or more than one of the new Departments, it is urgent that we get this through the business of the Committee and the House. It will require maximum effort from OFMDFM to ensure that there is a fair wind and every opportunity for the Bill to come back to the Floor before the next mandate.

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

Does the Chairman of the Committee have concluding remarks?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I have some very short concluding remarks. I concur with Mr Attwood. Given the timescales, it is important that we get on with it, and we cannot get on with it without the cooperation of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. We look forward to its urgent and detailed engagement in this matter.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 3 July 2015, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Children's Services Co-operation Bill [NIA Bill 44/11-16].

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

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for this debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the recent publication of the Education and Training Inspectorate’s evaluation of the implementation of the World Around Us, the Confederation of British Industry's 'Step Change: A new approach for schools in Northern Ireland' report, Momentum's digital sector action plan and the Engineering UK 2015 report, all of which highlight the importance of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in schools; recognises the role of STEM as a key driver of the economy; and calls on the Minister of Education to support and encourage the full implementation of the STEM aspects of the curriculum in order to bring about high quality learning for all children.

The skills required for today's job market are very different from those needed when I and, indeed, other Committee members were at school. The world is vastly different, and, thanks to technology, it is a much smaller place. It is paramount that our education system equips all our young people with the skills and knowledge to excel in the modern world.

The Education Committee has been lobbied by a number of interested groups in respect of the teaching of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in schools. The Committee has held information events involving schoolchildren and a wide variety of stakeholder organisations. Members also had the great pleasure of visiting the BT Young Scientist and Technology Exhibition in January and meeting the enthusiastic and extremely knowledgeable pupils from our local schools competing in that very prestigious competition.

The Committee noted with great interest a number of recent reports, which are referenced in the motion. You will be glad to hear, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I do not propose to put forward for debate everything that is in all those publications, but I would like to touch on a small number of key points, and I will rely on my Committee colleagues to fill in any salient matters that have been missed.

When the Committee is lobbied by educational groups, there is a common theme: they want us to make a part of the revised curriculum compulsory. Some of the suggestions, relating to science, for example, are extremely persuasive. They have gained the Committee’s support and, I believe, are worthy of at least some further study by the Department.

STEM learning and teaching, both in primary and post-primary schools, is of particular interest to the Committee. The motion indicates that STEM is a key driver of our economy, both current and future, and it is for that reason that the Committee has sought this debate.

Today, I anticipate that most of the Committee’s commentary will focus on science, technology and engineering rather than on mathematics, but that is not to undermine the critical importance of the latter.

In primary schools, science teaching at Key Stage 2 is largely based on an element of the curriculum called the World Around Us. That combines science, geography and history and is designed to allow teachers the flexibility to tailor delivery and engender interest in science while also preparing students for more in-depth study later in their school life. Lobby groups such as the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Association for Science Education have expressed concerns about blending other subjects with science. They feel that this has led to a reduction in the science content of teaching at primary schools. They are also worried about a reported lack of inquiry-based learning, which they see as central to a good and rounded education for all children.

The trends in international mathematics and science study (TIMSS) in 2011 found that just 13% of year 6 pupils in Northern Ireland were taught by teachers who emphasised science investigation in lessons, compared with around 40% in England and the Irish Republic. TIMSS also found that teachers had relatively limited confidence in the delivery of science at primary school. Furthermore, the Committee noted the relatively low level of uptake of science options by primary school student teachers at both university colleges.

The Committee raised some of those issues with the Department, and we were subsequently advised that the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) would undertake a review of the World Around Us. ETI found much of what the Committee expected: good practice in many schools but also a lack of definition of science in the curriculum and a need for improved linkages to the levels of progression. ETI also found some suggestion of, if not an overcrowded curriculum, at least some "initiative overload". Members noted with interest suggestions that there tended to be a lack of inquiry-based learning and limited provision of planned opportunities for problem-solving and investigation. ETI found that, despite the good practice, the science and technology strand of the World Around Us is still underdeveloped in 54% of primary schools.

Those findings have much resonance with the evidence from the lobby groups that I referred to. The Committee welcomes ETI’s recommendations, including the promotion of science in initial teacher education as well as the use of a baseline of science education in primary schools and better tracking of pupil progression in STEM.

As you are aware, the motion also references the CBI's 'Step Change' report and the Engineering UK report, and members agreed with the sentiments of both reports, particularly the recognition of the importance of science subjects and computing at post-primary level and the value of the Success through STEM strategy. Members, however, do not necessarily endorse all the recommendations in those reports.

The motion also refers to Momentum's digital strategy action plan. That report highlights the value of learning computer coding in primary schools. Although the Committee welcomes initiatives like IT’s Your Choice: A Computer Programming Continuum for Schools, members felt that there was limited information on current levels of formal and informal computer-coding teaching in schools. There is, therefore, a need for a formal use of baselines on this aspect of learning. This would be only sensible and should pre-empt any further policy decisions on altering the curriculum in this regard.

There is clearly good practice and excellent STEM teaching at very many of our schools. Evidence of that was provided last week when, as part of the NI Science Festival, children attempted the largest practical science lesson in the world.

The Committee is not suggesting that the Minister reinvent the wheel on STEM education, nor is the Committee suggesting that he presses Ctrl-Alt-Delete and recodes completely the way in which science is taught in schools. Rather, the Committee is calling for the Minister to reflect on the ETI review and the other reports, apply the scientific method of evidence-based decision-making and take the next steps to provide a consistent STEM educational experience for all our children.

In closing, I would like to make two additional points. First, Members were concerned to learn that the software systems development A level, as well as other applied A levels, are not recognised by universities in the Irish Republic. I ask the Minister, in his response, to comment on the portability of applied STEM and other A levels to other jurisdictions, as it has the potential to impose a massive roadblock to the educational progression of our young people.

Finally, I would like to make reference to Sentinus. Members were surprised to learn that the organisation, which has a leading role in promoting STEM in schools, is facing a possible significant cut to its budget. Perhaps the Minister will confirm if that is the case, and, if so, can he explain how the decision and the possible loss of match funding fits in with the Success through STEM strategy? At that juncture, I will close my remarks.

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

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this particular topic. STEM subjects are not simply a collection of facts and figures but an active and practical way of investigating the natural world. To me, it is the experimentation that brings the learning alive. I am concerned, as are other members of the Education Committee, that, particularly in our primary schools, science is being delivered a bit like any other academic subject, without the messy learning and experimentation.

We have the World Around Us as an integral part of the curriculum, but science and technology are buried in that curriculum area, along with history and geography. The primary-school experience is the essential foundation and building block of our children's learning. Children in those early years are sponges for learning. That creativity and sense of adventure need to be satisfied early. Children will stop asking the question, "Why?", if, for years, they do not get a satisfactory answer.

I taught mathematics and computing in the secondary sector for many years. Frequently, I would meet children of 11 who said that they hated maths, but, in most cases, when you answered the "Why?", they gained the confidence. They never got to the stage of loving maths, but they got their GCSE. The same is true for other STEM subjects and can be even more profound. You will not turn a 14-year-old on to physics if the only physics experience is their physics text book.

I remember well the early days of computer coding at Queen's in the 1970s and teaching it in the 1980s. Then, we had the ICT revolution, but if we are to advance the next generation, it must be more than simply learning about word processing, spreadsheets and slide shows. We must teach our children to problem solve, code and design programmes that perform useful functions. Learning to send emails is useful, but it will not make a talented software engineer. All too often, the real computer whizz is not the teacher at the white board but the student at the back of the class who is programming in their spare time.

One of the barriers is the lack of qualified STEM teachers, especially in our primary schools, with only around 1%. Most STEM graduates are snapped up and choose more lucrative careers. The lack of time and resources for quality continuing professional development for science teachers can lead teachers to play safe and be less adventurous in the science experiences that they deliver in the classroom. We have some excellent examples, but, at best, it is sporadic.

The lack of adventure is encouraged by a system that does not judge the quality of practical science delivered or learned by students. School practice is driven by what teachers believe is valued by ETI. Everything in education is driven by grades. Students want better grades as their passport and schools want to climb the league tables. By removing the contribution of practical work to grades, you inevitably remove the value of practical work.

The digital world has changed beyond all recognition in the last 30 years, but our education system needs to get up to speed. If we are to succeed in the globally competitive world, we need to learn from other countries, find our technical niches and occupy them early in primary school.

We must ensure that we have a sufficient number of talented teachers in key subject areas if we are to have a highly skilled workforce necessary for our future economy. We need subject specialists who can inspire students with their own passion. Many teachers are crying out for that extra support and the opportunity to develop their teaching skills and subject knowledge. We must ensure that young people are equipped for the challenges of the 21st century through improving the teaching of programming and ICT. It is expected that we will need an extra 20,000 people in that sector over the next three years. That can only be achieved by working to ensure continuity of demand for the region and the knowledge economy whilst ensuring that the skills pool continues to be populated so that we have a talented pool of people to meet the growing demand.

We must ensure that our curriculum is future-proofed. Computer programming and coding is already part of the curriculum in some areas, including in two of our nearest neighbours, England and the Republic. While we welcome workers from others areas, will our students be at a disadvantage when applying for jobs in the digital economy? Digital opportunities are huge, both economically and socially, because technology is such a great leveller. Children can rise to the top based on aptitude and ability irrespective of their gender or background. There are more and more job opportunities in the technology sector — more now than ever before.

To meet the long-term recruitment challenge, education is, as I said before, the foundation of building our economy.

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

The Member's time is up.

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

Minister, there are two things. First, we must ensure that the place of STEM subjects is strengthened in the World Around Us and, secondly, must raise the status of our teaching profession to the height that it deserves.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

The importance of matching the skills set of our young people coming through school into the world of work to the demands of the workplace is a central issue that we must focus on and is yet another example where proper, working, joined-up government would be successful. As a mother of three children, aged 14, 12 and nine, I am acutely aware of how I try to influence how my children choose their subjects and think about their future careers, but, ultimately, the school has the responsibility to nurture every child's skills and talents and open up their education to what is out there in the world.

In the first nine months of my job in this place, I was a member of the Employment and Learning Committee, and it heard from various employer organisations and representatives groups that emphasised that there were not enough people with the right skills available to meet the demands of the Northern Ireland workplace. We often hear of the fantastic job opportunities that are brought about by successful companies in Northern Ireland as well as by foreign direct investment companies that come to Northern Ireland, but it is really important that we keep on top of the supply of those skills to enable our economy to improve and to build Northern Ireland. That analysis in the Employment and Learning Committee led to an inquiry into the careers advisory service, primarily on how our young people find out about careers, what we should be promoting and what subjects are necessary to supply the workers that are needed.

That focus goes further. Not only do we need to give our young people the right advice about their future career, but we need to take the skills focus right back to the beginning; not just to post-primary education but right down to primary education. It is very often the case that the earlier our young people learn about a subject, the better their understanding will be and an interest will be sparked to learn more. We have heard that in years gone by about the teaching of languages being started at primary school, and it is also the case with STEM subjects, including computer coding, which we are hearing so much more about.

To me, this debate is a no-brainer. If our business economy is demanding workers with skills in science, technology, engineering and maths, we must find better ways of providing the workforce to meet those demands. This debate is timely given the recent series of events associated with the Northern Ireland Science Festival and the fact that the recent half-term break would have seen lots of schoolchildren travel to W5 at the Odyssey to get a taste of the wonder of science.

The Committee motion refers to several recent reports on STEM. We could add the 2008 MATRIX report from the Northern Ireland Science Industry Panel and the STEM review a year later, which produced a report that was jointly published by the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department of Education. Out of the same review came the STEM strategy, which was developed and endorsed in March 2011 by the Executive and taken forward by a cross-cutting implementation group, of which Joanne Stuart OBE was the chairperson.

Mrs Stuart highlighted in the one-year progress report published in 2012 the skills mismatch, which, she argued, could hold back the growth of the Northern Ireland economy. That remains the acid test. Has there been the growth in the numbers of young people taking up these subjects at school and then in higher or further education to provide the skills reservoir to fill the high-tech jobs that we expect to be created here in the next few years? Are young people being encouraged to study STEM subjects and to choose careers in those important sectors of the economy? There has been a slow upward trend in the number of A-level STEM entries, with 10,702 STEM entries in 2004-05 rising to 12,659 in 2010-11. That is a fairly underwhelming increase, might I say, and I hope that the Education Minister can reassure the House that recent figures show more positive trends.

Is there political leadership in the Assembly? Mr Deputy Speaker, judging by what I have witnessed in the Education Committee, I have my doubts. I do not hear the Education Minister promoting the STEM agenda as our priority for the curriculum. Far too often, I hear at Question Time after Question Time —

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

The Member's time is almost up.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

— an obsession with getting rid of academic selection and a blatantly partisan promotion of Irish-medium education. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will leave it there; I support the motion.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this and apologise to the Chair for missing the start. If I have missed anything that she has covered, I will pick it up afterwards.

We welcome the opportunity to talk about the importance of STEM subjects and their role in our education system today and into the future as we build an economy that works better for everybody. However, it is not all bad. STEM subjects are fairly well established in our schools. The recent report identified some areas as needing improvement, but we have a fairly good platform to start from. We see brilliant examples of good practice in our schools, at primary and post-primary level. It is important, therefore, that we do not get carried away and turn this into some sort of crisis. That is simply not the case: there is an increase in those taking and doing well in STEM subjects. We have an increasing number of STEM-facilitated local businesses every year, for which the revised curriculum and entitlement framework was largely responsible a number of years ago.

Indeed, it is for that reason that I am surprised at the criticism from the last Member to speak of the "obsession" with academic selection. It has always been about widening the scope for those at school and involving those who are interested in engineering and the sciences without having to go down the one route. That flexibility is very important. Young people studying the World Around Us get to apply what they learn in science not just in the classroom; when they go into the garden they can ask questions. Building in our young people a sense of enquiry — why does something happen and why is it important? — is very important if we are to see an increase in small and medium-sized enterprises locally. That requires the ability in our young people, which they get from science study and notions of enquiry, to take a risk.

We must also appreciate that there is more to STEM than science: it includes technologies, design, engineering and maths. It is important that we do not get bogged down in the old notion that there are just biology, chemistry and physics. STEM is a lot more than that.

STEM subjects are certainly not just for boys. Recently, according to an article in the 'Guardian', children were asked as homework to talk about a famous scientist. What did he look like? Was he married? Did he have a family? One child's mother was a scientist. We need to get beyond that. In the North, we certainly do better than many other areas. The imbalance between boys and girls is certainly not what it is elsewhere: young girls are taking up STEM subjects more and more. It is great to see that because there is far more to STEM subjects than some people envisage. At the BT Young Scientist and Technology Exhibition 2015 last month, we saw huge numbers of young women from across the island engaging in science, technology and design. We met a young winner from a couple of years ago, who was hugely inspiring. It is important to get as many young women involved as possible.

Inspiration is a big thing. South Down supplies huge numbers to the Civil Service and the public sector. We perhaps do not have as many small enterprises as we should, yet Hans Sloane and William Thomson, known to others as Lord Kelvin, came from this part of the world. They are huge figures in science. We could do more to inspire our young people to look up to scientists because, as I said, we have a very proud record. Some of the greatest scientific discoveries have been made by Irish people. I mentioned Hans Sloane, and it is important that we venerate such people and help young people to know what they did. Perhaps it is time that we looked at having a greater number of STEM-related scholarships so that our young people can really get the benefit.

It is important that we do not just see STEM as the golden nugget that will deliver a wonderful economy and a far better education service. Modern languages need to come into the mix, and we should not forget the arts. As well as the likes of Hans Sloane, south Down is very proud to have Francis Hutcheson, so philosophy and culture are also very important. We need to make sure that, when we talk about STEM, we are creating far more rounded individuals as well. We should not forget other subjects.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I will indeed.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Does the Member share my appreciation of the fact that, when he mentions William Thomson — Lord Kelvin — Hans Sloane and Francis Hutcheson, he mentions three of the individuals who are pre-eminent in the contribution of the Ulster Scots to the history of Northern Ireland?

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

The Member will be pleased to know that he has an extra minute to answer that one.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Member for his comment, and I agree: the Irish Scots were very important throughout the world. Francis Hutcheson went on to inspire many people who took part in the American Revolution. Indeed, he inspired many people around my part of the world — Ballynahinch and Saintfield — into the United Irishmen. He talked about democracy —

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I will indeed. Go ahead.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

We should mention John Stewart Bell. We are just after naming a crescent after him. He came from Tates Avenue, and he was nominated for the Nobel prize in physics. He proved Einstein wrong. Unfortunately, he died before he could be given the prize.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Member for his intervention. We could probably get a phone book out and go through lots of names of different people who did lots of things. When we talk about scientists, it is important that we realise that we have massive figures in our shared history, such as Francis Hutcheson, who did so much for the world of education, philosophy and everything else. We should look to use the example of those people to inspire our young people.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I support the motion and agree with just about everything that the other parties have said so far. I confess that I was not expecting to hear selection, the Irish language or Ulster Scots mentioned in the debate, but there we are.

The value of, and necessity for, STEM subjects being prioritised has long been advocated by the CBI, and by industry generally. We now have all the various reports — they have been listed, so I will not list them again — that are clearly making the same case. In that respect, we are only going to follow the rest of the world, particularly the major economies of India and China. Although we cannot expect to compete with them numerically, there is absolutely no reason why we should not develop as a centre of excellence in the areas of STEM and digital technology. We have had considerable success there, which really only confirms the untapped potential that there still is. I pay tribute to the companies operating in those areas, many of which are home-grown, that have already established in Northern Ireland. We have a good base to build on, but we risk running out of qualified personnel if we do not get this right.

It is generally agreed now that the process starts at primary level. That is a relatively new development, but it is good to see. I agree with Chris Hazzard that this is not a critical motion and that we do not need to dwell on any failure. We could do better, but things are not all bad by any means. There is a general upsurge in enthusiasm. I pay particular tribute to the primary schools that have embraced this and to the excellent work of Sentinus and BT. The biggest science lesson in the world was referred to as well. You have only to go to one of those events, whether it be at primary or secondary level, to see the enthusiasm of the children at any age. It really is marvellous.

For my sins, I have two grandsons, one of whom has just turned 10 and the other has just turned seven, who ask me questions now and I think, "Where did they get that from?" They get it from the World Around Us.

[Interruption.]

Mr Kinahan wants to know whether I can answer them, but it is with some difficulty.

The level of education they are receiving and their level of interest in it is quite startling, even at that age. That is what is, perhaps, at the nub of this issue. The World Around Us is very wide-ranging. It is a mixture of science, history and geography, as the Chairperson said, and you would wonder about the advisability of that particular mix and whether there is a need to concentrate more effort purely on the scientific side of it. I do not know the answer, but it is certainly worth looking at.

There is also, as Members have mentioned and the various reports have alluded to, a lack of confidence among teachers, particularly at primary level, in their ability to deliver the curriculum of the World Around Us because it is so broad-ranging. I note statistics in the ETI report that show that 87% of schools have a staff member with specific knowledge, two thirds have a staff member with a specific qualification, but only 37% have specific STEM course accreditation. Another statistic that catches my eye is that 93% of schools use external expertise but do not cluster sufficiently, and primary schools rarely use expertise from post-primary level. There is work to be done there as well to make it more efficient and effective.

The CBI's 'Step Change' report advocates something fairly radical, which is switching the focus from exam results to real-life preparation. I would have to tread carefully there but I know what it is getting at; it is advocating vocational A levels. I cannot help thinking that this is, perhaps, the way to go.

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

The Member's time is almost up.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I will quickly make the point that advocating vocational A levels and trying to increase the number of places to provide those vocational A levels does not fit too well with increasing the number of teachers in training when we do not need that number of teachers.

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

The Member's time is up.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

It is taking away from the DEL budget and it could be reprioritised.

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

Order. As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the House takes its ease until then. This debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Nelson McCausland.

The debate stood suspended.

Oral Answers to Questions — Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister

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

I inform Members that questions 2 and 4 have been withdrawn.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

1. Mr D McIlveen asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on their strategy for improving the lives of older people. (AQO 7677/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The purpose of the Active Ageing strategy is to transform attitudes to and services for older people. It is important that we fully acknowledge the enormous contribution that older people make to our society and that we challenge the negative stereotyping of older people. The strategy, when published, will provide direction for Departments' policies, make connections between strategies and lead to the improvement of services for older people.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

In developing the draft strategy, we have worked closely with the Commissioner for Older People and the ageing strategy advisory group, which includes older people and people working for organisations that represent older people as members. Officials met the advisory group on Wednesday 25 February and plan to hold a workshop later this month to finalise outcomes and work with our statisticians to develop indicators and discuss the final draft of the strategy, which, once finalised, will be subject to Committee consideration and endorsement by the Executive. Subject to that approval, we hope to publish the Active Ageing strategy in the coming weeks. The draft indicators for the strategy, which will establish baselines on current levels of need and will be used to monitor the implementation of the strategy, will be issued for public consultation in the near future.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his answer and for the vital work that is being done for that group of vulnerable people within our society. Has any thought been given, under the Delivering Social Change network, to some sort of a cross-departmental signature project that might be particularly targeted towards the needs of our older people?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I certainly think that, in the context of developing an Active Ageing strategy for older people, it is incumbent on all Departments to recognise their responsibility and to give whatever additionality they can to supporting older people, who deserve to be supported and have made massive contributions towards the development of our economy and society down the ages. If the Member has any particular ideas or suggestions, both the junior Ministers, Jonathan Bell and Jennifer McCann, would be only too happy to speak to him. I certainly think that, if that cross-cutting work can work to the benefit of older people in a way that delivers more for them, our Department, the First Minister, myself and the junior Ministers will be very supportive of what the Member has just said.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I wonder if the deputy First Minister shares my concerns at the fact that clear-up rates for crimes against older people are only 9% when, in fact, they are 17% for other groups, meaning that they really have less protection.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I certainly would be very concerned about those figures. What that does is place a huge responsibility on all of us, not least the Police Service, to ensure that we continue to examine ways in which we can support older people.

Fear of crime is a big issue for older people. In all the dialogue and discussions that there have been with the stakeholders and the Commissioner for Older People and in other conversations with older people, that has come through as one of the main areas of concern. I certainly agree with the Member that, in going forward, we have to look at what more we can do, and the police have to look at what more they can do. This is a huge issue for society. All of us — the Police Service, the voluntary and community sector, local communities and politicians — have to work together to identify what need there is and to see whether we can bring forward solutions.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

The deputy First Minister will be aware that, on more than one occasion, this Assembly or previous Assemblies have supported the idea of help with personal care for our elderly people when they need it. Will he bring forward or help to bring forward some idea that would prevent our older people having to sell the roof over their heads to pay for elderly care in their twilight years?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

That has been a concern for a lot of people in recent times. In our view, the strategic aims will improve existing services to ensure that they best meet the needs of older people. In addition, we have worked with Departments to tackle the challenges facing older people, and those will be taken forward in phases. Obviously, the Member identifies a key issue, because that engenders concern and fear about the future in the minds of a lot of older people. It represents one of the further challenges that we have to deal with in the time ahead. The issue has been raised in conversations with the Commissioner for Older People and individual stakeholders, which include an awful lot of older people. We need to look at what more can be done.

Bronwyn McGahan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. Will the Minister outline any projects that will support the Active Ageing strategy?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I said, the whole purpose of the strategic aims is to improve existing services and ensure that they best meet the needs of older people. In addition, we have worked with Departments on projects that will support the Active Ageing strategy to tackle all the challenges that face our older people. That will be taken forward in phases.

The first phase will involve programmes whereby resources have already been identified to make them happen. Those include things like encouraging and helping the new councils to sign up to the World Health Organization's age-friendly environment programme; a project to tackle fuel poverty; affordable warmth; tackling fear of crime; increasing the engagement of older people with policymakers; increasing digital inclusion; and a new mental capacity Bill. Additional resources will be required for the remaining programme proposals. Subject to funding being available, they will be prioritised and will subsequently form the second phase of the implementation of that strategy.

Megan Fearon (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

3. Ms Fearon asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on age discrimination in relation to goods, facilities and services legislation. (AQO 7679/11-15)

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

8. Mr Weir asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the implementation of legislation to eliminate age discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services. (AQO 7684/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, junior Minister McCann will answer.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 3 and 8 together.

On 19 February, the First Minister and deputy First Minister made a written statement to the Assembly about the Programme for Government commitment to extend legislation to give legal protection from unfair age discrimination by those providing goods, facilities and services (GFS). The proposed new legislation will apply to people aged 16 and over. The aim of the new legislation is to protect all people aged 16 and over from discrimination because of their age when accessing goods, facilities and services. That will put age discrimination outside work on a similar footing to discrimination law in employment. It sends out a clear message that ageist attitudes and practices are as unacceptable in service provision as they are in the workplace. Subject to Executive agreement, we intend to bring forward a consultation document in the near future setting out our proposals on the matter.

Following consultation, we will consider all the options that are available to us for bringing the legislation before the Assembly.

Megan Fearon (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her answer. Would she be supportive of future legislation to allow for the inclusion of under-16s in respect of age discrimination in GFS?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I am most definitely supportive of more inclusive legislation to stop age discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services, and we will continue to work with the children and young people's sector to progress the full extension of age discrimination legislation. The current agreement on the scope of the legislation means that, where previously no one had protection against age discrimination, we now have the most advanced legislation on these islands for people aged 16 and over.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the junior Minister for her answers so far. Will she outline the timetable for the implementation of such legislation? Does she envisage it being implemented in this mandate?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Member will know that it is a Programme for Government commitment. We have been working with officials. We recently agreed the scope of the legislation and are looking at how we can take it forward. There will obviously be the consultation period, but we are looking at all the possibilities to try to bring the legislation forward in this mandate.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagraí. The Minister said that she will consider extending age discrimination provisions to people under 16 in the future. Why can she not do that now?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Member will be aware that we could not get political consensus on that issue. I would have preferred to have been able to say that the age discrimination legislation would cover all ages, but we have to remember that we are where we are. The main gap in the anti-discrimination law here is that, at the moment, there is no protection from age discrimination for any age in the provision of goods facilities and services, so this is a move in the right direction and a move forward. As I said in my previous answer, I hope that we can work towards getting that legislation for everyone. That would put us in a better place.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the junior Minister for her update on the issue and welcome the long overdue progress on legislation to protect people from age discrimination. The older person's parliament in particular will welcome this long overdue announcement. What did the Minister make of the evidence that was given to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister about those under 16 who have been excluded from the legislation? In that evidence, there were assurances that exemptions could be delivered that should allow the legislation to be extended to all ages.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I reiterate my previous answer to the Member. He will know that I have spoken to members of the Committee inside and outside of the Committee. I wish that I was standing here saying that the legislation would cover all ages. I certainly believe that that would have been better legislation, particularly as it is anti-discrimination law. I will endeavour to work towards that. We will be protecting people who are over 16. We do not have anything on that at all at the moment, so this is a step in the right direction. I hope that we will be able to see progress at some stage and that I will be able to say that it will cover all ages.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

With regard to age discrimination, does the Minister consider that the use of voluntary redundancy and vacancy control may discriminate against younger people? When she is considering legislation in future, will she undertake to address the imbalance between ages old and ages young? That is a serious issue for our society.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I am not sure what the Member means about voluntary redundancy. Voluntary redundancy is obviously just that: you take it because you want it. In the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, we have responsibility for equality legislation and the policy on equality issues. Certainly, if the Member wants to come and discuss the issue with me, the other junior Minister or indeed the First Minister or deputy First Minister, he would be most welcome.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

5. Ms Sugden asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline their responsibility for informing applicants to the social investment fund as to whether their application has been successful. (AQO 7681/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will ask junior Minister McCann to answer this question.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

In keeping with the community-based ethos of the social investment fund, zonal steering groups made the final decisions on projects that were selected for their area plans. Individuals or groups that were involved with concepts which did not make it into the area plans were advised at the time. The area plans were submitted in February 2013. When the zonal allocations were subsequently announced, the steering groups were asked to prioritise their area plan projects again in their assigned zonal budgets. This process was completed by November 2013. The steering groups should have informed those involved of the decisions. If anyone is still in doubt, they should contact their zone's steering group directly. Contact details for these steering groups can be found on the NI Direct website.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

I think that this whole process is actually quite empty. The fact that you are referring us back to a steering group that obviously knows as much as you do about this is quite disappointing. Was any money actually in place when this process was first announced, and is there any money in place to fulfil the many applications?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Member would know that in her area, quite a bit of progress has been made. Her area covers three zones; Derry, the western zone and the northern zone. Around £50 million has already been committed in letters of offer and projects that have already started. While the money is not in the baseline of the OFMDFM budget because it is, in fact, an Executive budget, there is a clear indication that when the money needs to be drawn down, it will be drawn down.

It is really the responsibility of local steering groups to, if you like, inform the areas and projects that were unsuccessful. Those local steering groups were set up for the purpose, first of all, of deciding which particular projects they wanted to bring forward. They should also encompass, if you like, members of the community, the voluntary sector and other statutory organisations so that those individuals form a clear, wide membership of those steering groups.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Can the Minister outline the process for ensuring that letters of offer to social investment fund projects will be taken forward in a timely and efficient manner?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Obviously, as I said, it is good news that the majority of projects are now progressing, but we are aware that a small number of projects still have not reached full approval stage. Officials are refocusing efforts to secure the business case approval on all remaining projects in the allocations for each zone. Steering groups are aware of this. While we have to be sure that all projects are fit for purpose and demonstrate value for money, we remain committed to ensuring that all projects in affordability levels are approved, letters of offer issued and projects commenced as soon as possible in order to get the benefits from the social investment programme. Again, I just want to say that we are working with people and the local steering groups to try to ensure that these projects are brought forward as quickly as possible.

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

I do not think that I have ever heard the words "timely and efficient" being used to describe the social investment fund, since £30 million has been underspent as it is. The junior Minister referred only to money that has been promised as opposed to having actually been spent. Can the junior Minister outline what evaluation and monitoring methods are deployed with regard to the social investment fund?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

First of all, I want to say to the Member that she is actually wrong because two projects have actually started. They are the Coleraine rural and urban network in the northern zone and the Bryson Street Surgery in east Belfast. There are a number of projects. I can give the Member a list of many that will be taking work forward soon. Can I say again that while this money has not been in OFMDFM's baseline, it has been allocated. Almost £50 million has been offered through letters of offer and everything else. So, I think that it is disingenuous of the Member to say —

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

I think that it is disingenuous of you —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Order.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

If you want the whole plan of it and to know how it has been rolled out, I will certainly give that to the Member in written form.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

It is very far from in order to interrupt a Minister in the middle of an answer. I will not tolerate that.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Is the junior Minister aware that applicants in my area did not even know that there was such a thing as a steering group or know how to contact it? What key things have you learned about the roll-out of the social investment fund?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Different areas must have different ways of working the steering groups. Some of the steering groups that I know in west Belfast and, indeed, in the south-eastern zone, are made up of members of the local community and members of voluntary and statutory organisations. Once they were clear on what projects they wanted brought forward, they brought in members from the statutory groups or the business community to whichever projects they wanted to deliver. They work closely together, not only by way of the steering group working together, but through work with other policies and programmes like neighbourhood renewal, for instance, or with people in the council who are involved in community planning. Local people are designing the projects for their areas. The make-up of steering groups should, obviously, be from local areas.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

6. Mr McAleer asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the shared campuses element of Together: Building a United Community. (AQO 7682/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The development of 10 shared education campuses is one of the seven headline actions announced alongside Together: Building a United Community. The programme was launched by the Department of Education in January 2014, and 16 applications were received under the first call for expressions of interest. In July 2014, the first three projects to be supported were announced as shared STEM and sixth-form facilities in St Mary's High School, Limavady and Limavady High School; a shared education campus, incorporating Moy Regional Controlled Primary School and St John's Primary School, Moy; and a shared education campus, incorporating Ballycastle High School and Cross and Passion College, Ballycastle. Project boards for those three schemes have been established, and detailed economic appraisals, including technical feasibility studies, are under way. Exact costs will not be known until the appraisals have been successfully completed.

A second call for expressions of interest opened on 1 October 2014, with a deadline for submissions of 30 January 2015, and a further six proposals involving more than 20 schools have been received in response to that second call. The expressions of interest received were for Marmount shared sports facility; IQ centre, north Belfast; Brookeborough shared education campus; Digital Derry; Duneane and Moneynick partners in learning; and Cookstown SEED centre. The first four of those projects were unsuccessful under the first call and have reapplied under the second call. Those applications are now being assessed, and it is hoped that the successful projects under the second tranche will be announced in June 2015.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. Will the Minister provide us with a progress update on the Lisanelly shared education campus in Omagh?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Lisanelly shared education campus programme is, as many people know, additional to the Together: Building a United Community commitment of 10 shared campuses included in the headline actions. I can report that very good progress is being made. The first phase of construction, which is at Arvalee School and Resource Centre, is expected to commence in the current financial year, with the school becoming fully operational in September 2016. Work is also continuing to develop the overall exemplar of campus design and to prepare the wider site.

The Lisanelly shared education campus is additional to the Together: Building a United Community commitment and is mentioned in the strategy in the context of enhancing overall shared education provision through the creation of the 10 shared campuses that are to be based on the Lisanelly model. Six schools in total are relocating to the Lisanelly shared education campus. Those are Arvalee School and Resource Centre; Christian Brothers Grammar School; Loreto Grammar School; Omagh Academy; Omagh High School; and Sacred Heart College.

This is a totemic project, and one that has generated huge interest in County Tyrone and further afield. I know that a lot of people are looking at it very carefully. I think that, in the context of the Stormont House negotiations, which the First Minister and I and others were involved in, the fact that the project was in the pipeline greatly assisted us in achieving the half a billion pounds that we achieved for use in integrated and shared education.

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

I thank the deputy First Minister for his answer. I do not disagree with a single syllable of it, but, given the seriousness of the situation, in that not a single peace wall has been dismantled and paramilitaries are still flourishing, is this shared campus experiment sufficiently funded and will it really encourage the peace and reconciliation that the people voted for in 1998?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I think that there is a very strong view on the Executive and, indeed, among the parties that negotiated the Stormont House Agreement that the achievement of the £500 million — half a billion pounds — to bring our young people together in shared education campuses and to support integrated education is a very worthwhile project as we continue to build for the future. There are clear and ongoing examples of people making an effort to come together. I know that considerable discussion is taking place between officials from the Department of Justice and people on either side of the horrid so-called peace walls that exist in Belfast to see whether we can continue to meet the target that we have set ourselves to bring those peace walls down.

Absolutely essential to all of that is the leadership that is shown in the Assembly and between political parties. I described the Stormont House Agreement as an opportunity for a fresh start, and I think that we all need to seize that opportunity so that we can continue to build confidence in the political process and between communities. If I may say so even in this conversation, I warmly welcome the fact that the Loyalist Londonderry Bands Forum will make a presentation to the Sinn Féin ard fheis this weekend in Derry city. I think that all of that represents a big effort being made by people on all sides to see what unites us, as opposed to what divides us. The sort of leadership that is being shown in the city of Derry is something that could be followed everywhere.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

What level and type of shared contact will occur between pupils in shared education of this kind?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Essentially, the opportunities for shared education right across all the work that schools are involved in are clearly there for all of us to see. The fact that the Lisanelly campus, for example, is seen as a totemic project and is being looked at by schools all over the North of Ireland and, indeed, further afield clearly shows that people recognise that there are opportunities to bring people together. That is the case not just in the context of sixth-form lessons. If more people are brought onto shared sites, we will see a level of contact that we have not seen in the past. It will be a real opportunity to have people working together and sharing, for example, restaurant, canteen and sporting facilities.

The First Minister and I recently met people from Brookeborough in County Fermanagh. I have to say that it was inspirational to listen to the sort of leadership they were giving. The recognition that they understand is given to these projects will hugely benefit our young people in all sorts of ways — through their education; through sport, drama and arts; and through a whole range of issues.

Of course, key to all of it is the leadership being given in these institutions. I think that that leadership is being given. People recognise the value of bringing our people together and ensuring that, as much as we possibly can within the challenges that we face, we continue to integrate our young people with a view to ensuring that it pays dividends in the future in moving to a much more peaceful and less divided society.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

That brings us to the end of the period for listed questions. We now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

T1. Mrs Hale asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether, as part of their trip to the US for St Patrick’s Day, they expect to promote Northern Ireland as a good place to invest. (AQT 2181/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Well, I have been very privileged in this job, going back to when the DUP and Sinn Féin first agreed, with others, to go into government together in 2007, to work on how we can develop, as a central plank of our economy, the attraction of foreign direct investment to the North. The late Rev Ian Paisley and I had a very successful visit in December 2007, and since then I have worked very closely with the First Minister, Peter Robinson, all over the United States of America. In the course of that work we have managed, even against the backdrop of a very cruel world economic recession, to attract more foreign direct investment jobs to the North than at any other time in the history of the state.

Quite clearly, there is an open door for us in the United States, whether it be in California, Chicago, New York or Washington. We had, during our stewardship of OFMDFM, a very important economic investment conference right in the State Department, from which flowed many of the new job announcements that we are now seeing on a very regular basis. I believe that we will continue with a very positive message and, against the success of the Stormont House Agreement, make it absolutely clear to everybody that we are open for business. In the context of the debate around corporation tax, it is quite obvious to all of us that there are great opportunities, as well as challenges, that lie ahead.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Deputy First Minister, you anticipated part of my supplementary question. Do you agree that the sooner we have the devolution of corporation tax and know the rate at which it will be set, the better it will be for Invest NI and the Executive to attract more jobs to Northern Ireland?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I certainly do agree, and the First Minister and I have been involved in discussions around that. It will also be discussed during the course of the party leaders' implementation meetings. When you consider the sort of access we have in going to the United States and actually meeting President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and others, you can clearly see that there is incredible interest in the ongoing success of the peace process here.

There is also tremendous interest in supporting economic development here. In the course of our conversations, we recognise that Invest NI has a very important job to do, and we need to give it as much support as we possibly can. That means coming, as quickly to possible, to an agreement on time frames and on the rate that we strike. Of course, in the meantime we have to await the finalisation of the legislation in the House of Commons, but I am confident that the decisions that have to be made will be made in a very expedient way, with a view to ensuring that we garner as much opportunity as we possibly can.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

T2. Mr D McIlveen asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether they believe that improvements could be made in the Executive in affording more protections to faith communities in Northern Ireland. (AQT 2182/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I think that there are tremendous protections for faith communities in the North of Ireland, and I have a tremendous respect for all of the Churches and the contributions that they have made through what has been a very challenging time for us in terms of the political process, and also the tremendous work that the Churches do in bringing people together.

The point that the Member mentioned obviously has some currency in relation to the ongoing discussions. I understand that there was an important meeting between the Bishop of Down and Connor and the DUP last week. It was quite interesting that there was also a meeting between me and the Bishop of Down and Connor a week before that. Obviously, the Churches have a very great interest in meeting politicians. As we go forward, we have to ensure that we have a very fine balance between the rights of faith communities and minorities in our society, because a chief responsibility of the Assembly and the Executive is to ensure that we protect the rights of everyone and that there is equality for everyone whilst, at the same time, not denying anyone the right to practise their faith.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his answer and welcome the fact of his church attendance in the last couple of weeks. Will the deputy First Minister give us some indication, bearing in mind that he made the point that faith is not just reserved for the Christian community but is broader, of whether he has any objections to the issue of the protection and the rights of people of faith being included in the commission that was recommended by the Stormont House Agreement? Has he any objections to that being part of it?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I think that the Member mentioning my attendance at church in recent times is a bit bizarre. I am a regular church attender, and sometimes I go there with the First Minister and, indeed, with others when the occasion demands. I have a huge respect for all Churches. As someone who is a Catholic, I try to be the best Catholic that I possibly can be. At the same time, during the Stormont House negotiations, the purpose of the commission that we agreed was to deal with the whole issue of flags, symbols and emblems, and I think that that would be stretching the remit, although I am certainly open to conversations during the party leaders' meeting around the issue that the Member raised. I know that he is very close to his own faith. I know some people who are very close to him also, and he knows that I know them, and he knows that I have a great admiration and respect for them, even though they come from a completely different religious position from mine.

I think that we all have to respect each other. We have to recognise that the whole issue of religion can be very divisive and very damaging to our society. We only have to look further afield to what is happening in other parts of the world to see the atrocious activities of groups like ISIS and the way in which it targets religions of all descriptions and carries out mass murder in order to get its own way. So, hopefully we are a society —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

You are talking about mass murder?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

— that is emerging successfully from conflict, and I think that the vast majority of the Members, with the exception of maybe one in the House, sing from the same hymn sheet as I do on this.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I intend to make this the last time that I warn Members. If you interrupt a Minister in the middle of an answer — that is, you are preventing everybody else from hearing the answer — I will take action. I hope that that is as clear as it can be.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

T3. Mr Cree asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the progress of development at Shackleton Barracks, Ballykelly. (AQT 2183/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am very delighted to be able to say that the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and I were in Ballykelly less than two weeks ago with the local community and with representatives of all the political parties — the Ulster Unionists, the DUP, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. I am not sure whether there were any Alliance members there but there probably were. We were there to view the ongoing demolition of military buildings on the site so that we can begin the process of relocating an entire Department, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, to the Ballykelly site.

When the Ballykelly site first came into our ownership, many people thought that it would be a hindrance to the Executive and that it would cost us money to maintain. It cost us some initial funds, but I believe that they were well spent. The site is twice the size of the Maze/Long Kesh site. The First Minister and I have been involved in some 40 expressions of interest from people who wish to go onto the site. We are absolutely confident that we can create thousands of new jobs on the Ballykelly site, which will be a major boost for people in Derry city, Limavady and the Coleraine area, not to mention Ballykelly itself, so the whole of County Derry and wider afield will benefit through the site's development. It is a very encouraging and optimistic message, and I believe that it will be a success.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the deputy First Minister for that. I was at Ballykelly recently with the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee to have a look around and I must say that I was surprised at the number of buildings, which are in all sorts of condition. I wonder whether it is anticipated that any of those buildings will be retained.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I believe that some of them will be retained and refurbished. The First Minister and I have spoken to people who are looking to take out a short-term lease during this year for the next nine months. They have a project that is ready to go. Without breaking confidentiality, it is a very exciting project. For that to work for them, it will require the utilisation of some buildings on the site.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

T4. Mr G Robinson asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline the potential number of jobs that could be created by private investment in the 740-acre Ballykelly site, as well as the relocation of DARD HQ jobs to Ballykelly. (AQT 2184/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

When a Member get up to ask a question, it is always hard to know what the question will be. However, in the case of the Member for East Londonderry, it was highly predictable that his question would be about Ballykelly. I know that he has a tremendous interest in the development of the site in the interests of the people of the constituency. From that point of view, we sing from the same hymn sheet.

We are absolutely confident about this. Apart from the relocation of DARD's headquarters to the site and NI Water's interest in a project on it, many other expressions of interest have come from private companies, some of them from overseas. Even at this stage, we can predict that, when fully developed on the site, there will be thousands of new jobs. God knows where I will be 10 years from now, but I think that people will remember the decision to use the site to see, over the next short while, what level of interest there is as we sell off lots. As the Member said, it is an absolutely massive site, so we can predict that it will be very successfully exploited for the purpose of putting our people into work.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

A quick supplementary question, Mr Robinson.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his answer. Does he agree that the opposition of political parties to any redevelopment of the Ballykelly site could be damaging to the economic future of the north-west?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I was surprised to hear that reservations were being expressed. I will not use this exercise as an opportunity to score party political points, except to say that this is a wonderful site and there are tremendous opportunities. The First Minister and I are absolutely determined that we will exploit the development of the site for the benefit of business, bringing in foreign direct investment and putting our people into work. That will be a massive benefit to the whole of County Derry, as I call it, or County Londonderry, as you call it.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Mr Alastair Ross, I am afraid that I do not have enough time for you to ask a supplementary question, but if you put your question, you will get an answer.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I will be as succinct as I can, Mr Speaker.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

T5. Mr Ross asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether they agree that it is now time that we act to make the Assembly smaller by reducing the number of Assembly Members and, if so, whether they see any reason why that could not be done by 2016, given that, earlier today, the First Minister outlined the new names and functions of the smaller Executive, which will be good for efficiency and for saving money, and reform within the public sector is under way. (AQT 2185/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We have an agreement. It is in the Stormont House Agreement that we will deal with the reduction in the number of MLAs by 2021, when the election after the one in 2016 will take place. Speaking personally, I have no difficulty at all with the reductions, except to say that, because the current number was part of the Good Friday Agreement and did not change during the discussions on the St Andrews Agreement, the reality is that we will require the support of all the parties who signed up to the Good Friday Agreement and who supported it in the referendum. I know that reservations about the speed of all of this have been expressed by the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP. I think that this matter will essentially have to be processed through the party leaders' meetings. We are determined to deal with the issue, but it has to be in a way that brings everybody on board.

Oral Answers to Questions — Education

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

1. Mr D Bradley asked the Minister of Education for an update on the proposal for a new build at St Joseph's High School, Crossmaglen. (AQO 7691/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The first draft of the feasibility study for the new build at St Joseph's High School was submitted to the Department in week ending 20 February 2015. When the feasibility study has been signed off, the Department will undertake an economic appraisal and business case. DFP approval will be required for this business case due to the value of the project. Provided that there is no delay due to issues with the feasibility study, it is anticipated that business case approval could be obtained as early as April 2015. The procurement of the integrated design team to take forward the project as a design and build will be carried out in tandem with the preparation of the business case. However, the appointment cannot be made until the approval of the business case is obtained. This project is still at early planning stage and hence there is not yet a programme time frame available for the build and design.

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

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. Seo an chéad lá de Sheachtain na Gaeilge agus tá súil agam go ndéanfaidh gach Comhalta a dhícheall a oiread Gaeilge agus is féidir a labhairt le linn Sheachtain na Gaeilge. I thank the Minister. It is, of course, the first day of Irish Language Week, so I urge all Members to do their best to use Irish during their questions or answers.

As I said, I thank the Minister for his answer. The Minister will know that I have raised this issue on a number of occasions, and he has responded very positively by visiting the school and through his announcement of funding. Can the Minister give us an assurance that his Department will facilitate the new-build process in every way possible?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chomhalta as a cheist. I thank the Member for his question, and I welcome his comments about Seachtain na Gaeilge.

I can assure the Member that I am wedded to this project. My Department and I are driving it forward, and he will note even from my answer that we are working our way through the project. It is quite a significant public investment, and we have to follow the proper protocol and policies, not only of my Department but of DFP. I think that things are moving forward well, and, without being pre-emptive, if we can get the business case approved by April, that will move us to the next stage.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

While the Minister is answering questions about my constituency, can he let us know whether he will prioritise a new build for Markethill High School in County Armagh?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

We have quite a significant number of schools in our estate at primary level and post-primary level that require new builds or significant investment. I am not in a position to announce any further building programmes at this stage. How the budget, particularly the capital budget, works out through 2015-16 will decide whether any future capital investment announcements are made during this Assembly term. It may be the duty of the next Assembly or the next Minister to make announcements around future builds in the years beyond 2015-16, but I continue to keep the situation under review.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagraí. I thank the Minister for his answers to date. There is a good presentation here in relation to capital build projects in Newry and Armagh. Will the Minister take this opportunity to give an update on capital projects across the North?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chomhalta as an cheist. I have made a number of announcements since coming into post. In 2012, I made an announcement of 18 projects, valued at £133 million. Eight school builds are now on site. Arvalee special school is due to go on site in March 2015, with a further five going on site early in the start of the next financial year. St Gerard's resource centre is now complete. In 2013, there was an announcement of a total of 22 projects, valued at £222 million. Currently, there are eight business cases approved, and work is progressing well on the remainder.

Eight of the projects are expected to move on to site in 2015-16, subject to availability of capital in subsequent years. I also made an announcement in 2014. The projects are at the very early stage of planning and are going through the appropriate policy development and business cases etc. It is vital that we are able to announce capital builds because it takes a significant number of years from announcement to put a new build on site. So, we do that years in advance, and we have to ensure that the money is there to follow that up.

Unfortunately, my Department's capital budget is not what I would like to have seen, and I am sure that that is the case for my Executive colleagues as well. We all want to see further investment in capital across the Executive, but I will keep the situation under review, and if I believe that it is appropriate to make an announcement of further capital builds for years going forward, I will do so later in 2015.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Questions 3, 4 and 7 have been withdrawn.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

2. Mr Givan asked the Minister of Education to outline the number of young people who fail to complete years 13 and 14 of full-time education. (AQO 7692/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The number of pupils who fail to complete years 13 and 14 is relatively small. The school leavers' survey shows that, in 2012-13, some 522 pupils left post-primary school without completing year 13, and 305 left without completing year 14. The survey also shows that the majority of those pupils — 76% of those leaving year 13 and 71 % of those leaving year 14 — went on to further education colleges, employment or training.

Many of those who fail to complete year 13 or year 14 do so because they are not content with their chosen pathway and decide to change direction. It is important, therefore, that young people are supported in making the right choices at the right time. Effective and timely careers guidance is important to support young people in making informed choices. That is why I welcomed the recent review of the joint DE/DEL careers strategy, which found that the strategy is sound and has resulted in significant improvements in the delivery of careers education over the past four years.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for that response. Whilst it is a small number, I would be interested to know how many make an in-year change and then decide to change to a college. When I was 16, I went to Lisburn college, realised that the course was not for me and went back to secondary school to do A levels. Those statistics would provide an interesting insight. What further steps can be taken to try to minimise the type of change that takes place, because there is a cost to the taxpayer, and there is a lost opportunity to the young people who are involved? What more can be done to try to limit those experiences that we are having?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I know that the Member has asked questions previously in relation to this matter, and some statistics were provided at that stage. It is when and how the statistics are gathered and provided that will illuminate as to some of the points that you made in relation to whether young people make those choices at the start of the year or the middle of the year. I suspect that it is a mixture of both, but I will investigate to see whether we have the detail to answer the question that you have posed.

In relation to how we ensure that young people make the right choices, it is down to careers advice. It is down to ensuring that young people are fully informed of the career options that they have and the pathways that they will have to follow and where those pathways will lead them if they make certain subject choices. As I mentioned in my original answer to you, the recent review of the careers strategy has been quite positive, pointing out that we are beginning to make positive changes to careers advice and that young people are now receiving much-improved careers advice from that given in previous years, but we will continue to keep that matter under review.

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

Minister, you rightly put the emphasis on the careers education programme. What discussions have you had with the Department for Employment and Learning to bring forward the recommendations from the careers review?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I have had discussions directly with the Minister, and my officials are in discussion with his officials about the matter. We are continuing to investigate how to bring forward the recommendations of the review, particularly given the constrained budgetary period for both Departments.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answers so far, and it is good to hear that there are so few. Has the Minister thought about or even discussed with officials the idea that has been suggested in the UK of extending the school years to include 17- and 18-year-olds or adding some flexibility into the system?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I think the Member is referring to the compulsory age of leaving school being 17 or 18, and I think it is worth exploring. I am not proactively doing that, but people's lifestyles are changing, and the figures show that more and more young people stay in education beyond the age of 16, 17 or 18. Our career pathways are changing, our education system is changing and, indeed, the skills bases that employers require are changing. As we all know, we are also expected to work longer, so it is important that we start looking back down the track at how long our young people should stay in school. It will be a wide-ranging debate with implications for a significant number of Departments, but I think that it will have positive outcomes for young people and may well have a positive outcome for the economy, and, whether or not I have the opportunity to explore it during this term in office, I believe that it is something that our society and the Executive need to start discussing in detail.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

5. Mr McElduff asked the Minister of Education for an update on the work of the Lisanelly education campus stakeholder group. (AQO 7695/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chomhalta as an cheist. The Lisanelly shared education campus (LSEC) community stakeholder group held its inaugural meeting in December 2014 and is due to meet again in the near future. The group includes representation from the district council, community organisations and statutory bodies. Its main focus is to contribute to the achievement of the vision and objectives of the LSEC programme through a process of ongoing two-way engagement that allows for consideration of issues that may impact on the local community. The group will achieve this by exploring how opportunities and benefits for the Omagh area can be maximised in economic, social and community regeneration objectives.

Following the group’s first meeting, reflecting the areas discussed and ideas generated, my Department, in conjunction with other Departments and relevant organisations, is examining the provision of additional community services and facilities that may be provided on the site. Progress will be communicated to the group at its next meeting.

As part of a wider communication strategy, work has also commenced to develop an overarching brand and vision for the campus. My Department has written to the community stakeholder group asking for its involvement in that exercise. Members of the group will be consulted to ensure that the views of the local community, young people and other key stakeholders on the development of the site and brand are captured.

I would also note that, at the request of the group, Omagh Youth Council has nominated two of its members to sit on the group. This will help to ensure the views of young people and potential LSEC pupils are captured and taken account of.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Can I thank the Minister for his answer and his pioneering work in leading this iconic Lisanelly education campus. Can the Minister indicate the key milestones that are up ahead for the project, for this calendar year and for future calendar years? Are we on course for the 2020 opening — is it? — of the schools that will be on the site? What are the key milestones up ahead?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The key milestone up ahead is the starting of Arvalee special needs school, and that is on track. We are on track to have schools on site towards 2020. There has been significant progress made over the last year and a half in moving the project forward.

It is the biggest capital project that the Executive are involved in. It is a massive investment in shared education and in the Omagh area. I know that, at times, progress has been frustrating for the local community, but we are now back on track and are ensuring that things are moving forward.

Arvalee School is expected to open in September 2016. A contract for site-wide demolition was recently awarded, and work has commenced on the site. Planning of future phases of development is ongoing in close consultation with the relevant schools and schools authority. It is expected that construction of the five post-primary schools will commence in 2017, with the campus opening in September 2020. We are moving ahead, and, after long years of visioning, talking and planning the project, physical work is taking place on the site, and employment is being generated in the community. Schools in the Omagh area are at the very heart of planning the site. As I said in my original answer, many aspects of the community are involved in it.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

Minister, progress has been slow and very frustrating. You said that it would be open by 2020: is that subject to funding, or will it take place on the ground in 2020?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Unfortunately, everything in this life is subject to funding. It is part of our forward planning, and, when we sit down to talk about capital for future years, the Lisanelly site is always front and centre because it is a Programme for Government commitment. There have been delays in the past, but we are determined to deliver it on time. Arvalee School is expected to open in September 2016, and work will commence on that very shortly. People will then have the confidence that the site is for real, that the schools are moving on to it, and that the Executive will deliver on their Programme for Government target.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

What level and type of contact does the Minister hope for between pupils at shared education of that kind? How will he know if it has been achieved?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I wish for maximum sharing on the site. The local schools are involved in discussions on how and when to use the facilities. It is about how schools use them together and how the young people on the site create a common identity but with schools with a different ethos on the site. There should be a common identity among pupils attending the Lisanelly education campus and being proud of that corporate identity.

How will we know that it has worked? I think that the commitment of the local schools and stakeholders in Omagh will make it work. I have no doubt that, over many years, there will be much scrutiny and many case studies of the Lisanelly site. At times, there will be a steep learning process for some, but what encourages me, as Minister, is that people are willing to learn and to challenge one another and themselves about the shared education site at Omagh. It is a pathfinder project that offers massive opportunities for the community of Omagh and, indeed, across the North.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

6. Lord Morrow asked the Minister of Education how he is accelerating and streamlining the process of statementing for special educational needs students in mainstream post-primary schools. (AQO 7696/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

My proposals, following the review of SEN and inclusion, contain measures to reduce the time for completion of statutory assessments for SEN children in all schools. The proposals also aim to reduce the administration around statementing. I propose a reduction to 20 weeks in the time frame for statutory assessment and statementing. A revised statutory code of practice will set out practical arrangements for the Education Authority and schools to meet a child's special educational needs. That will follow provision in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill and the supporting regulations. The revised code will describe the new processes for three levels of support and the respective duties of boards of governors and the authority. It will complement the anticipated streamlined process following the creation of the Education Authority. To reduce the administrative burden associated with annual reviews of statements, I propose that some reviews will provide an opportunity for a swifter process. That would require parents and schools to be fully satisfied with the current provision in a statement. Parents and schools would both have to agree that a review involving other advice-givers is not necessary.

The Department will indicate to the authority and schools the acceptable time frames for completion of assessment and provision of supports. Ongoing capacity-building training for special educational needs coordinators has been delivered to ensure that schools are fully informed of the processes for the identification and assessment of children's needs. I intend that to be supplemented by training for each school and board of governors on the new SEN framework prior to implementation.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I did not quite catch whether he said that he hopes to reduce the processing time to 20 weeks or that it is 20 weeks at the moment. Could he clarify that point, when he rises to speak again?

Does he accept that the time taken for assessments is too long and is affecting the development of some students?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The current time frame is 26 weeks. We wish to reduce that to 20 weeks in the legislation and regulations.

I note that the Member has been asking a significant number of questions for written answer on special educational needs, and I am more than happy for my officials to meet him to discuss the issues of concern to him. There are clearly issues that he is bearing down on and wishes to have further clarification on. If it is of assistance, I am more than happy for my officials to meet him to discuss matters further.

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

Given the awful legacy of illiteracy and innumeracy inherited from predecessors, what hope can the Minister give to parents who believe that their child has special needs when the Education Authority believes otherwise? How will those parents approach the tribunal and what support will they have?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

First, I would encourage parents to talk to the teacher and, if need be, follow it up with the board of governors and/or the principal of the school. They should discuss the matter in detail to ensure that whatever support is required for the child is delivered, whether it is the responsibility of the school or, as we move forwards, the Education Authority. In all cases, there is an appeal mechanism in place that I will encourage parents to follow through to its conclusion.

I introduced a Bill today that will have its Second Reading next Tuesday. We are attempting to modernise special educational needs provision to deliver a more effective and efficient service to children, families and schools. The Bill will quite rightly attract significant attention; I have no doubt that the Education Committee will scrutinise it in great detail. I have already agreed to work with it on the matter. There are many matters that I bring before the Assembly over which I am prepared to dig my heels in and fight the good fight, but this is not one of them. I believe that, if the Assembly, the Committee and I work together, we can achieve a statementing process through the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill that meets the needs of our young people.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I welcome the Minister's commitment to cut the time from 26 to 20 weeks. He will be aware that I wrote to him recently about a constituent, and the broad context of that was whether he was now prepared to say that he will accept statements from other parts of the UK? Would that not help to streamline the process, rather than repeating it? Will he now give a commitment to accept statements from all constituent parts of the UK?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

This is not an issue about the "constituent parts of the UK", as you put it. It has nothing to do with my views on the constitution of this society, the North or whatever you want to call it. As I set out in great detail in the written response, this is to do with the different emphases in the statementing process in England, Scotland or Wales. The statementing process may be different in England, Scotland or Wales from the process here. There are variations in the processes as they would apply to a young person travelling from here to Britain. Those are just facts that we have to deal with, and I want to deal with them as quickly as possible. I want to remove obstacles to parents and children rather than place obstacles in their way. I can assure the Member that I will look for any way around this that does not interrupt the legislative process that we have to follow. Statementing and so on is all set down in legislation; it is not simply a matter for the Minister to dismiss. I assure the Member that I will not place any obstacles in the way of ensuring that young people receive the services they require, regardless of where they are from.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I might have missed the answer to the last question, although I have been listening to all the rest. I appreciate what the Minister said about cutting the wait from 26 weeks to 20 weeks, although I recognise that that has not always been met in the past. Will he guarantee that the upcoming Bill will end the current postcode lottery?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

One of the initial reasons why the Bill was brought forward was an attempt to end the postcode lottery. There is a difference in the delivery of some of the services across the boards. Now that we have the Education Authority in place, that body will bring together best practice from across the boards. It will take some time to do that because it has a significant work programme in front of it. The shape of the legislation now rests with the Assembly, As sponsoring Minister, I have agreement from the Executive to bring forward a Bill. That Bill will be introduced and will go through the various stages of the Assembly. The shape of the final Bill will be as the Assembly dictates. I am prepared to work with the Assembly and the Committee and vice versa. We have had a very good working relationship on the matter to date, and I hope to continue that. I have no reason to suspect that that will not be the case. Let us produce an Act that meets the needs of our young people at the end of the journey.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

8. Mr Wilson asked the Minister of Education what percentage of children attending integrated schools receive free school transport. (AQO 7698/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The percentages of pupils attending integrated schools who are eligible for assistance with home-to-school transport are 17·8% for primary and 51·9% for post-primary.