Northern Ireland Assembly, 30 November 2015

452 contributions from 67 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Thank you, Members. Sorry about the slight delay. We just had some amendments to make to the pack.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I beg to move

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 30 November 2015.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved (with cross-community support):

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 30 November 2015.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

As with similar motions, this will be treated as a business motion and there will be no debate.

Resolved:

That Mr Danny Kennedy replace Mr Neil Somerville as a member of the Committee for Justice. — [Mr Swann.]

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

The next item on the Order Paper is another motion regarding Committee membership. As with similar motions, it will be treated as a business motion and there will be no debate.

Resolved:

That Ms Claire Hanna replace Mr Colum Eastwood as a member of the Committee for the Environment. — [Mrs McKevitt.]

Ministerial Statement

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. It would be remiss of me not to start by congratulating Tyson Fury on becoming a world boxing champion. Comhgairdeas.

I am very pleased to announce the launch of the consultation on the subregional stadia programme for soccer. This Executive-agreed programme aims to meet the strategic needs of football. On 10 March 2011, the Executive endorsed an investment of circa £36 million to develop subregional football across the North of Ireland. It was agreed that this would be taken forward as a priority area of spend in the next CSR period. The Executive endorsement was based on input received from the sector in 2011 on potential actions needed to meet the strategic needs of football.

The consultation document has been developed to reflect priorities outlined in a draft paper prepared by the IFA in 2011. Today's launch takes into account those priorities, as well as subsequent needs that have emerged in soccer since then, by providing an opportunity over the next 12 weeks for everyone's input before the programme is finalised. To align the subregional programme for soccer consultation with priorities agreed by the Executive in 2011, the programme has been divided into five distinct strands.

Strand 1 is safe stadia. The purpose of this strand is to provide funding for safe stadia capable of hosting high-level competition matches with a capacity of circa 6,000 to 8,000 persons. Redevelopment of the Oval, in partnership with Glentoran Football Club, is proposed. A budget of circa £10 million will be made available for this strand.

Strand 2 relates to significant subregional stadia. The purpose of this strand is to provide subregional stadia that can sit at the hub of key communities. They would offer quality football and community facilities that bring revenues for the club tenants, making football in these areas more sustainable. This strand will be open only to venues designated under the Safety of Sports Grounds Order 2006. A challenge fund principle will apply to the allocation of funding. A budget of circa £17 million will be made available for this strand, with a maximum award of £3 million available per venue.

Strand 3 concerns IFA Championship clubs. The purpose of this strand is to provide funding to improve safety provision at soccer venues. Strand 3 will be open to all venues not designated under the Safety at Sports Grounds Order. A challenge fund principle will apply to the allocation of funding. A budget of circa £3 million will be made available for this strand, with a maximum award of £500,000 available per venue.

Stand 4 is the provision of a national training centre. The purpose of this strand is to provide funding towards the creation of a purpose-built flagship national training centre to support current talent and nurture future generations. A budget of circa £3 million will be made available for this strand.

Strand 5 is intermediate and junior football. The purpose of this strand is to provide funding, via targeted programmes in partnerships with local councils, schools and colleges, to deliver key sporting centres in local communities at an intermediate and junior level. A budget of circa £3 million will be made available for this strand.

The consultation document proposes that all applicant organisations must meet core criteria. Those include demonstrating ownership of the venue through freehold ownership or leasehold that provides a minimum of 10 or 21 years' security of tenure, depending on the scope of works or value of the award. Applicants must demonstrate that they are properly constituted by means of a constitution or memorandum and articles of association that provide for equality of opportunity, not-for-profit status, child protection and management input from users. Applicants must be viable and solvent. In the absence of operational viability, only applicants that can meet the security of tenure requirements will be deemed eligible. The venue must be located in the North of Ireland, and the project must, in the main, benefit the inhabitants of the North of Ireland. Applicant organisations must also meet specific eligibility criteria, depending on which strand of funding they apply for. Those relate to size and capacity, designation under safety at sports grounds legislation, partnership working arrangements and affiliation. So the applicant must be an IFA-affiliated club or non-IFA-affiliated club with grounds located in the North of Ireland that hosts NIFL, IFA, UEFA or League of Ireland fixtures.

In addition, for a project to be considered eligible, applicants must clearly demonstrate: the project is a capital one, which, for the purposes of this programme, is defined as expenditure associated with the purchase, improvement, construction or creation of an asset and includes any costs directly incurred in that process; the project is fit for purpose, well designed and of high quality; the project is viable in the capital funding package required; the project is for the benefit of the soccer fraternity in the North of Ireland; the project will improve facility provision at soccer venues as per the IFA’s 2011 draft facilities document; the applicant organisation has not committed itself by purchase, contract or other binding agreement before receiving an offer of award and permission to proceed from DCAL; and the project builds on existing resources and is in addition to existing or planned investment by statutory bodies or the owner of the facility. In addition, the project cannot be a replacement or upgrade to a project that has been funded through public-sector investment and is still within the economic lifespan of the asset, which is 21 years for buildings and 10 years for pitches.

I am opening a consultation on the proposed strands and levels of funding for the programme and on the needs that have emerged since 2011 that are not included in the IFA’s 2011 proposals. All applicants to the programme should be aware that there will be a requirement for partnership funding. The programme will be assessed under challenge fund principles, with award recommendations based on available funding, eligibility and projects attaining a high assessment score.

The consultation documentation is available from today on the DCAL website. The consultation will run for twelve weeks from today, 30 November 2015, until 22 February 2016. In line with appropriate guidance, I sought comments from other Departments prior to the public consultation being launched. My officials will host four consultation events across the North of Ireland during that period, where stakeholders will have the opportunity to engage with departmental representatives in relation to the subregional stadia programme for soccer.

The consultation document will be made available in the form of an online survey, with additional formats available on request. The 12-week consultation will be widely publicised and open to everyone who wishes to respond. Opinions will be sought specifically from groups with a direct interest in the subregional programme for soccer as well as those on DCAL’s list of consultees. DCAL’s key stakeholders, including MLAs, councils and other interested parties, will be notified directly via email.

It is my aim to make the consultation on the subregional programme for soccer meaningful and inclusive so that all parties that are likely to be affected by, or have an interest in, the strategies have the opportunity to engage in developing the programme.

This is an excellent opportunity for those involved in soccer to develop their facilities as a means of improving the sustainability and viability of soccer at the subregional level. I am delighted that the programme will also contribute to promoting equality and tackling poverty and social exclusion.

I thank the House for this opportunity to update Members on these actions. I will keep the House informed of progress on the subregional stadia programme for soccer. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The commitment of £36 million for subregional stadium development for football in Northern Ireland will be welcomed. There has been a recognition that the investment in football that has already been made has improved people's experience of going to matches and has drawn larger numbers to the grounds for games. The original intention, as stated in response to a question for written answer from my colleague Gordon Dunne back in the summer, was that there would be a 20-week consultation that would begin in early August and run through to December. We are virtually at the start of December and the consultation process has been reduced from 20 weeks to 12 weeks, similar to that for the arts and culture strategy. Will the Minister explain why there has been a delay and how — if the consultation is to run from 30 November to 22 February, and you then give a further four weeks for consideration of any submissions that there are to that — it would be possible to come to any decision that can go through the Executive before the end of the mandate?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Chair for his questions. As the Member will know — and it is the same response as the one I gave him last week in relation to the strategy for culture and arts — there was not an Executive meeting during the summer. Given that this is a key Programme for Government commitment, I felt that it was completely appropriate to consult Executive colleagues, which I have done. The consultation will run for 12 weeks. There will be a quick turnaround in looking at the responses to prepare an application process, but this was always meant to go through in the next CSR period. Basically, I am making sure that everything is good to go for whoever comes after me and ensuring that everything that can be done has been done, that the consultation will be meaningful and inclusive and that the application process reflects the consultation period. It will be designed around the feedback and the consultation process. The next Minister will then just have to open the application process and make the award soon thereafter.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat. Cuirim fáilte roimh ráiteas an Aire. An dtig liom a fhiafraí den Aire faoin phróiseas iarratais? An dtig léi cur síos ar chuidiú do chlubanna ar mheas a dhéanamh ar na hiarratais, agus cad é mar a dhéanfar na cinntí? Will the Minister outline the assistance that will be given to clubs in the application process? How will applications be assessed, and how will decisions be made?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for her question. I am sure that she picked up some of what I outlined to the Chair. As soon as the consultation process has closed, the feedback will be brought into the Department. Actually, with feedback that we get along the way, we will try to start a draft application process. However, it will be finalised only when the consultation process has closed. The application forms and process will be tailored to suit that, and it will be open soon after. It will be for the new Department for Communities to give assistance to clubs, but we will have laid down a template of what we feel is necessary. I anticipate a lot of feedback as a result of this consultation. I believe that the feedback will be inclusive, coming particularly from the soccer family, and help to design and form any new application process.

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

Minister, I welcome your statement. I am relieved that the consultation exercise is finally under way, given that it is four-and-a-half years since the programme was endorsed. The statement does not include a time frame for the application process and the project selection process, yet I note that all projects must be completed by March 2018. Given that the consultation will end on 22 February, as the Minister has stated, and the Department will then need time to consider its response to the consultation responses, can the Minister advise whether the programme will be progressed any further prior to the end of the mandate? Does she think that any of the soccer clubs have missed an opportunity because of the delay in this announcement?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

First of all, the subregional soccer programme was never due to start until the next mandate, so, while it was announced in March 2011, the conditionality was that it would be for the next CSR. Given the fact that we had an additional year added on to the mandate, I have started a lot of the preliminary works. The consultation will close on 22 February. Within a few weeks, the application process will be designed and, hopefully, open for people. In the time between the old mandate ending and the new mandate beginning, the Department will be able to work with clubs to help them with the application process, and it will be for the new Minister of Communities to make a decision, but the decisions will be made by the Department.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, you mentioned the effective dates. This strategy was first developed at the end of the last mandate. Since then, we have had the IFA's facilities strategy document of August 2012, which was, obviously, quite different from the 2011 situation. In your report, you talked about other factors that have emerged since 2011. Will you clarify the situation with regard to the Glentoran club and the IFA's new facilities strategy of 2012?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

There are at least five questions there, but I will answer the Member as best I can. The IFA's facility management strategy was part of the Executive's decision and endorsement of 10 March 2011. That is why I have made it clear that needs have emerged since then. I know that the IFA has redrafted its needs since 2011. It will appreciate that other needs have emerged from clubs since then. We also now have the emergence of the 11 super-councils, which, hopefully, will have a role to play in this. That is a need that was not anticipated on 10 March 2011. I think, and I am sure the IFA will agree, that we have been as considerate as we possibly can be, beyond the Executive's agreement that was made in March 2011. We want to try to include as many opportunities for people to apply for this as possible. The decision on Glentoran was part of the 10 March 2011 decision. That is something that has been there for at least four years, if not more. Certainly, I know that the Member will welcome this consultation and encourage clubs in his constituency to feed into the consultation, if they feel they can.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I declare an interest as a member of an amateur football club in Northern Ireland. I wholeheartedly welcome the football stadia funding programme for senior and junior football in Northern Ireland. I particularly welcome the commitment to Glentoran Football Club. It is a real hub for sporting and community development, not only in east Belfast but for national youth training, particularly in intermediate and junior football. Does the Minister recognise that intermediate and junior football in particular are in real need of support due to the individual and community outcomes they achieve for groups in areas of particular high social need? Will she commit to ensuring that as many football clubs as possible are fully aware of the opportunities that this fund will create?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. I certainly agree with most, if not all, of his sentiments, particularly with regard to intermediate and junior football. Within that, I assume he is including boys and girls, because there is a real problem with the representation of women, particularly in the three big sports. In fairness to them, they have gone to great lengths to ensure that there is better inclusion. The bigger clubs will see themselves in different strands of this, but all must have and demonstrate inclusiveness; they must demonstrate that they are reaching people who have not been reached in the past, not just for the purposes of the application but for the future. That will be strongly tested. Clubs in areas like east Belfast, and many others across the North that are sitting within indices of high deprivation, will have to demonstrate their inclusivity for investment like this and potential investment. They will need to ensure that they are going to provide opportunities for children and young people, and for older people, to become involved in sport and physical activity.

I will do my best to ensure that as many people as possible are not only aware of the consultation but have their say. I am encouraged that Members like you will do likewise.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her statement, which is somewhat overdue. With regard to strand 3, will the Minister indicate how she reckons that £3 million will be sufficient for championship clubs? I understand that up to 30 clubs could be looking for potential funding to a maximum of £500,000. How will that be sufficient in trying to address the long-standing funding issue? Clubs like Bangor Football Club have waited a long time for this announcement, yet there will be disappointment that possibly only six clubs will get something from the pot. Surely £3 million is insufficient in trying to address the IFA championship club problem.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I assume that the Member is not still playing for Bangor, because he would have had to declare an interest. As I said, this was the 2011 IFA facilities strategy. As I also clearly said, it is also looking at emerging needs that have occurred since then. It is up to the clubs. A lot of them will feel that the strand is not appropriate. In fact, I anticipate that £36 million is not enough to cover the needs. However, it is a substantial amount of money. If people have thoughts about the strands that are outlined as draft in the consultation, they need to put forward proposals that they think would better suit the soccer family. That is as open and transparent as you will get in any consultation.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement. Who is responsible for the subregional programme: DCAL or the IFA?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Department is primarily responsible for the consultation programme, although we work in a very strong partnership with the IFA. I am launching the consultation, taking responsibility for the process and designing the application process, which will leave the next Minister in a position to make decisions on who is successful as a result of the consultation.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

I declare an interest as a member of the IFA council. Wearing a number of hats, I welcome the statement and the substantial investment that is being announced today. There is, however, a bit of an anomaly whereby some championship clubs are designated grounds, and, vice versa, some clubs are playing in the premiership and are not designated grounds, which falls between the two. Potentially, Larne Football Club is an example of a championship club that is designated, and Warrenpoint Town Football Club is a premiership club that is not designated. Who will make that call? There is a grey area in the middle.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I was aware that that would be an issue before the consultation was launched, because, between the designation of grounds, and even for smaller clubs and the primacy rule, that issue has come up consistently. I have said to people — I take the opportunity to repeat it today — that, if they feel that this gap or confusion will disadvantage a group, geographical area or community, that needs to be said in the consultation. I believe not only that it should it be said but that it should be pointed out exactly how people will be disadvantaged. I am not expecting people to write the consultation for me, but I do expect to hear the opinions of soccer clubs and the challenges that they have experienced over the years. I believe that, within the soccer family, the consultation will be an opportunity for them to put down how they think that future needs can be met through this opportunity.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an ráiteas fosta. I welcome the statement. I should declare an interest as a member of the GAA and an avid rugby fan. Are there any plans for a similar subregional programme for GAA and rugby facilities in the future?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member is on the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure, and he has certainly engaged with the three main sports. He would have heard that, along with the subregional programme for soccer, the IFA, the Ulster Council of the GAA and Ulster Rugby — the three sporting bodies — have asked for additional resources for subregional opportunities in the next mandate.

Those discussions have started and, while we are launching the consultation on the subregional programme for soccer, as I have already said there is, most likely, not enough money to meet the needs of all. Those conversations between the three big sporting bodies and my Department have started, and I want the Member to know that I am encouraged by what I have heard thus far. It would seem that the direction of travel for the three big sports is not only looking at single facilities but at facilities that they can physically share and which will allow them to share skills and expertise. They are looking in particular at the inclusion of children and young people from deprived areas, those with disabilities, and women and girls in their sports.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Northern Ireland is obviously a small country, and the development of elite players is essential. The Minister will know that the Northern Ireland senior team has qualified for the Euros next year, but the under-19s have also qualified for the elite section. Therefore, the establishment of a national training centre is a huge decision and an important development. Will the Minister assure the House that money will be divided across Northern Ireland on an equal basis, to ensure the development of facilities across Northern Ireland? Where should the national training centre be sited, and can she update the House on that issue?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

It is far too premature for that. I launched the consultation this morning and you are already asking me to commit to a certain area; it is a bit silly. Putting that aside, I believe that there is an opportunity here. Some people feel that there is no need for a national training centre because Windsor Park has been developed, and others believe that there is a need for it and, if there is, it should be a, b, c or d. I am looking forward to everybody's opinion, not only on where facilities should be developed but on how much should be spent on them and all the rest.

The soccer community has been waiting for this consultation for a long time, and it knows and understands that it was something that would happen in the next mandate. I believe that, depending on the needs of certain clubs, we will certainly see the demand in the responses that come back, aligned to the comments and queries that have been raised around some of the draft strands thus far. This was 2011; the IFA has amended its facilities strategy since then, and it also appreciates that different needs have emerged. I anticipate that those will be reflected in the responses to the consultation.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an ráiteas agus gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an ráiteas seo. I welcome both the statement and the fact that the Minister is here to present it, particularly in relation to the eligibility criteria. I note and welcome the fact that it is also going to allow for non-affiliated clubs, particularly those that play in the Football Association of Ireland (FAI) league, which would include Derry City, in my home town. Is the Minister of the view that Derry City, perhaps, is well placed to make a bid for this, given that the club plays in the Football Association of Ireland's league, and that the siting of the national training centre there in the future would be more than appropriate?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I am certainly not going to cite where any training centre should be located. The Member is right; part of the criteria for support through the subregional programme can be for NIFL, IFA, UEFA or Football Association of Ireland league fixtures, which includes the Brandywell. I look forward to and anticipate, from the Member's constituency but particularly for that geographical area, a lot of feedback into the consultation. If everybody who approached me any time I went up to that part of the town feeds back into this, I anticipate that the majority will come from Derry city, north Belfast, east Belfast and the rest.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her statement, which is very welcome. Will she provide some clarity for us? She mentioned that all applicants to the programme should be aware that there will be a requirement for partnership funding. At what level will that be? After the consultation closes on 22 February, how soon will the funding become available? Can the same club apply to different strands?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

First, the partnership funding depends on which strand they apply for. If they decide that some of these strands do not meet their needs, they should, as part of the consultation process, say so. They should say what their needs are and where they think additional strands need to be included.

As I have mentioned a few times, the consultation closes on 22 February, and it will take us a few weeks to gather up all of the responses to help us to design an application process. Once that process has been designed, there will be an open call, and I anticipate that it will last several weeks, which will take us into the next mandate. Maybe the Member has some suggestions or is working with clubs that feel that they meet one criterion but not another, and their partner meets one criterion but not another. It is down to individual clubs to make their case for partnership funding. I have left it open enough so that, although this is the 2011 draft facilities strategy from the IFA, it has been very consistent in saying that the needs that have emerged since then should be reflected in the consultation.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Minister has been very dogmatic when it comes to the sport of boxing that, to benefit from funding, you must be affiliated to a specific and sole governing body, yet, when it comes to football, there is no requirement for affiliation to the IFA. Why is there that distinction and bias? Is it so that the Brandywell can qualify?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member is credited with being extremely intelligent, and he is also given credit for having the ability to scrutinise things, so I assume that he has done that and just does not like the answers that he is getting. Boxing needs to be affiliated to a governing body on receipt of a letter of offer. If there is not a governing body that the Member feels recognises his cause, he should support the boxers — end of story. If he has not the read the statement, I can highlight the following for him and put it in his pigeonhole. It says:

"the applicant must be an IFA affiliated club or non IFA affiliated club with grounds located in the north of Ireland and who host either: NIFL, IFA, UEFA or Football League of Ireland fixtures."

I have read that into the record. I can highlight the statement, and I can highlight the Hansard report, and he can do what he likes after that.

[Interruption.]

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Order. I am not going to have that barracking. Questions are asked and answered, and Members should listen to both.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I understand that this announcement comes from a decision by the Executive on 10 March 2011. That is some time ago, and a lot has changed since, not least our financial position. Has the Minister had cause to bring this issue back to the Executive to ask them whether they are sure that, in light of other priorities, we really ought to be investing £36 million in this venture?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

As the Member will be aware, the Programme for Government commitment on developing the three stadia as well as the subregional programme still stands. Prior to this consultation being launched today, I copied my Executive colleagues into correspondence to let them know that that is the case. I have had no feedback from anyone to suggest that this is not value for money.

I am aware that the Member has raised concerns, particularly about the private sector construction and all the rest. These stadia, these grounds and this investment will provide local employment, which is really needed, as well as sustainability for those communities, during and post construction. The Executive are very clear and very specific about that. We should try to avail ourselves of any investment, particularly capital investment, where there are opportunities to provide social benefits and social clauses during and post construction. I believe that that is the case.

The decision was made in 2011, and things have changed since. In fairness to the IFA, it has tried to adapt its draft facilities strategy in line with emerging needs. The question that you are asking me is one for the Executive, and I believe that I have given you an answer as best I possibly can.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Would teams such as Limavady United and Coleraine Football Club be eligible to apply for some of the funding to upgrade their grounds?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

As I said to other Members, the consultation is open. If Limavady or Coleraine believe that they should be able to apply for the funding when it becomes available, they need to say that in the consultation. They also need to make any points or comments in the consultation to strengthen not just the case for geographical clubs — and there are many — but to future-proof the development of soccer in all areas across the North. I encourage the Member to ensure that those clubs not only take part in the consultation but demonstrate how they will meet the needs of young boys and young girls and people with abilities and non-abilities in any future proposal or application because it is really important that we get feedback.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

That concludes questions on the statement.

Executive Committee Business

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I beg to introduce the Departments Bill [NIA 70/11-16], which is a Bill to rename the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Department for Regional Development and the Department for Social Development; to dissolve the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, the Department of the Environment and the Department for Employment and Learning; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I beg to introduce the Addressing Bullying in Schools Bill [NIA 71/11-16], which is a Bill to address bullying in grant-aided schools.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to introduce the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill ) [NIA 72/11-16], which is a Bill to regulate the sale of nicotine products and tobacco, to amend the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 and the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 in relation to the provision of health care; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I call the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, Mr Simon Hamilton, to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Food Hygiene Rating Bill.

Moved. — [Mr Hamilton (The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety).]

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

One amendment has been tabled. Members will have received a copy of the Marshalled List of Amendments, which provides details of the amendment and the groupings list. The amendment delineates the instructions for communication, which are technical in nature. I remind Members intending to speak that they should address their comments only to the amendment. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to move the following amendment:

In page 11, line 33, at end insert

"(3) A notification under section 2, 3 or 4 may, without prejudice to any method of service authorised under section 24 of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954, be sent by ordinary post; and accordingly, unless the contrary is proved, a notification sent by ordinary post is to be treated as received on the day on which it would have been delivered in the ordinary course of post (with references in this Act to when a notification, or something with it, is received being read in light of this subsection).". — [Mr Hamilton (The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety).]

The proposed amendment is a purely technical one that relates to clause 17. Through engagement with district council officers, who will be responsible for implementing and enforcing the provisions of the Bill, an issue was identified with regard to clause 3(4), which has the potential to cause district councils operational difficulties in the effective and efficient operation of the scheme.

The issue relates to a food business operator receiving a notification of a rating under clause 2, which is deemed to have taken place when the conditions in section 24(1) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 are fulfilled. However, it has been established that it would be open for a food business operator to argue that the reference in clause 3(4) to when the notification is received more naturally suggests actual receipt and, therefore, raises a contrary intention sufficient to disapply section 24(1) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954.

It has also been noted that section 24 of the Interpretation Act would require the notification of a rating to be sent by registered post, which would not be a practical or cost-effective method for district councils to adopt. The issue has been addressed by proposing this amendment to clause 17, which is entitled 'Interpretation' and provides clarification on notification. I trust that Members will appreciate the need for the amendment and will understand that, from an operational perspective, it makes good sense. I ask them to give their support to the amendment.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. As the Minister outlined, an issue was identified with clause 3(4), which had the potential to cause district councils some operational difficulties in operating the food hygiene rating scheme. The Minister wrote to the Committee on 7 September advising members of the issue and of his intention to address it through an amendment at Further Consideration Stage. The Committee considered the proposed amendment at its meeting on 16 September. Given that, as the Minister outlined, it was a technical amendment that had no effect on the policy and would ultimately result in the more effective and efficient running of the scheme, the Committee agreed to note the proposed amendment.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Ulster Unionist Party supports the amendment tabled by the Minister. It is timely that the Bill is progressing to the next stage only days after the Deputy Minister for Health in Wales described the system there as a "big success". That is perhaps another example of the Welsh leading the way on public health amongst the regions. I will leave that for Members' consideration.

In the two years since the Welsh legislation came into place, the share of food outlets getting the top, five-star rating has risen from 45% to just over 60%. The ratio of firms rated satisfactory or better rose from 87% to over 94%, and the number of outlets with a zero rating halved from 134 to 61, which is around one in 500. Overall, it has succeeded in driving up standards in restaurants and takeaways, and I have every hope that our Bill will do the same. It will give greater confidence to consumers and drive up food hygiene standards at outlets across Northern Ireland at the same time. This is one of those Bills that, along with minor changes such as today's amendment, will be able to deliver obvious benefits to consumers.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

As a member of the Health Committee, I rise to support the amendment before us today. I welcome the Food Hygiene Rating Bill as a means whereby our population can have confidence when visiting all our food providers, cafes, restaurants and eateries of every description. Northern Ireland is renowned for the provision of excellent food, and I have no doubt that that will continue with the introduction of this Bill.

Our Committee visited premises that supply food to the public, and I was very impressed with all the visits, none more so than the visit to our very own Blue Flax restaurant. I congratulate the manager and his staff for the excellent manner in which they carry out their work.

The district councils' environmental health officers carry out a very important and essential role, and the amendment and the Bill are very welcome. On behalf of the Alliance Party, I support the Bill.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Members who contributed very briefly to the debate. In particular, I thank the Committee and the Chair for accepting the amendment and for the support that has been shown. As I indicated previously, the reason for the amendment is to provide clarification on notification under the provisions of the Bill, which will facilitate district councils in effectively and efficiently implementing the food hygiene rating scheme. I ask Members to support the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Food Hygiene Rating Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

We will take our ease for a moment because I think that we are expecting at least one Member. You will not get it much easier than that, Minister.

Committee Business

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I call the Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill.

Moved.—[Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are three groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn. The first debate will be on the amendments relating to changing the title of "Ombudsperson" to "Ombudsman".

The next debate will be on the amendments in group 2, which deal with procedures, including commencement, reporting and privilege, and technical changes required to the Bill. The third debate will be on amendment Nos 31, 51, 75, 89, 91 and 305, which deal with the powers and ambit of the ombudsperson.

Members intending to speak should address all the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on each group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate.

If all of that is clear, we shall proceed.

Clause 1 (The Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsperson)

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move amendment No. 1:

In page 1, line 5, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman".

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In page 1, line 6, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 3: In page 1, line 8, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 4: In clause 2, page 1, line 10, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 5: In clause 2, page 2, line 2, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 6: In clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 7: In clause 2, page 2, line 7, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 8: In clause 3, page 2, line 11, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 9: In clause 3, page 2, line 14, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 10: In clause 3, page 2, line 19, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 11: In clause 4, page 2, line 28, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 13: In clause 5, page 2, line 34, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 14: In clause 6, page 3, line 10, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 15: In clause 7, page 3, line 28, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 16: In clause 7, page 3, line 31, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 17: In clause 7, page 3, line 33, leave out first "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 18: In clause 7, page 3, line 33, leave out second "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 19: In clause 8, page 3, line 39, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 20: In clause 8, page 4, line 7, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 22: In clause 9, page 4, line 16, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 23: In clause 9, page 4, line 19, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 24: In clause 10, page 4, line 21, leave out first "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 25: In clause 10, page 4, line 21, leave out second "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 26: In clause 10, page 4, line 24, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 27: In clause 11, page 4, line 32, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 30: In clause 12, page 5, line 33, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 32: In clause 14, page 6, line 9, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 33: In clause 15, page 6, line 19, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 34: In clause 16, page 6, line 28, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 37: In clause 17, page 7, line 11, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 39: In clause 18, page 7, line 28, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 41: In clause 18, page 7, line 33, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 42: In clause 18, page 7, line 35, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 45: In clause 20, page 8, line 18, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 46: In clause 21, page 8, line 29, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 47: In clause 21, page 8, line 39, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 48: In clause 21, page 8, line 41, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 49: In clause 21, page 9, line 5, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 50: In clause 22, page 9, line 8, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 53: In clause 23, page 9, line 15, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 54: In clause 24, page 9, line 24, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 55: In clause 24, page 9, line 27, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 56: In clause 25, page 9, line 38, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 57: In clause 25, page 9, line 41, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 58: In clause 25, page 10, line 1, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 59: In clause 26, page 10, line 3, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 60: In clause 26, page 10, line 7, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 61: In clause 26, page 10, line 10, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 62: In clause 26, page 10, line 13, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 63: In clause 28, page 10, line 23, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 64: In clause 28, page 10, line 27, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 65: In clause 28, page 10, line 29, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 66: In clause 29, page 10, line 35, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 67: In clause 30, page 11, line 5, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 68: In clause 30, page 11, line 8, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 69: In clause 30, page 11, line 10, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 70: In clause 30, page 11, line 11, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 71: In clause 30, page 11, line 17, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 72: In clause 30, page 11, line 18, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 73: In clause 30, page 11, line 26, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 74: In clause 30, page 11, line 28, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 76: In clause 30, page 11, line 32, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 77: In clause 30, page 11, line 34, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 78: In clause 30, page 11, line 36, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 79: In clause 30, page 11, line 38, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 80: In clause 31, page 12, line 7, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 81: In clause 31, page 12, line 13, leave out "Ombudsperson’s" and insert "Ombudsman’s". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 82: In clause 31, page 12, line 15, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 83: In clause 31, page 12, line 20, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 84: In clause 31, page 12, line 22, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 85: In clause 33, page 13, line 3, leave out first "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 86: In clause 33, page 13, line 3, leave out second "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 88: In clause 33, page 13, line 8, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 90: In clause 34, page 13, line 26, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 92: In clause 35, page 13, line 34, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 93: In clause 35, page 13, line 39, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 94: In clause 35, page 14, line 1, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 95: In clause 35, page 14, line 2, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 96: In clause 35, page 14, line 5, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 97: In clause 35, page 14, line 6, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 98: In clause 35, page 14, line 8, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 99: In clause 37, page 14, line 23, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 100: In clause 37, page 14, line 26, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 101: In clause 37, page 14, line 28, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 102: In clause 37, page 14, line 29, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 103: In clause 37, page 14, line 30, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 104: In clause 37, page 15, line 1, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 105: In clause 38, page 15, line 5, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 107: In clause 38, page 15, line 13, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 108: In clause 38, page 15, line 16, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 109: In clause 39, page 15, line 18, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 110: In clause 39, page 15, line 20, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 111: In clause 39, page 15, line 24, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 112: In clause 39, page 15, line 28, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 113: In clause 39, page 15, line 33, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 114: In clause 39, page 15, line 36, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 115: In clause 39, page 15, line 37, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 116: In clause 40, page 15, line 40, leave out first "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 117: In clause 40, page 15, line 40, leave out second "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 118: In clause 40, page 16, line 2, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 119: In clause 40, page 16, line 6, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 120: In clause 40, page 16, line 8, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 121: In clause 40, page 16, line 10, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 122: In clause 42, page 16, line 17, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 123: In clause 42, page 16, line 23, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 124: In clause 43, page 16, line 33, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 125: In clause 43, page 17, line 5, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 126: In clause 43, page 17, line 7, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 127: In clause 43, page 17, line 10, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 128: In clause 43, page 17, line 11, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 129: In clause 44, page 17, line 14, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 130: In clause 44, page 17, line 17, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 131: In clause 44, page 17, line 19, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 132: In clause 44, page 17, line 21, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 133: In clause 44, page 17, line 23, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 134: In clause 44, page 17, line 24, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 135: In clause 45, page 17, line 27, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 136: In clause 45, page 17, line 29, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 137: In clause 46, page 17, line 32, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 138: In clause 46, page 17, line 33, leave out "Ombudsperson’s" and insert "Ombudsman’s". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 140: In clause 46, page 17, line 35, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 141: In clause 46, page 17, line 38, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 142: In clause 46, page 17, line 40, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 143: In clause 46, page 17, line 41, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 144: In clause 46, page 18, line 1, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 145: In clause 46, page 18, line 2, leave out "Ombudsperson’s" and insert "Ombudsman’s". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 146: In clause 46, page 18, line 2, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 147: In clause 47, page 18, line 4, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 148: In clause 47, page 18, line 6, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 149: In clause 48, page 18, line 14, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 150: In clause 48, page 18, line 15, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 152: In clause 48, page 18, line 18, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 153: In clause 48, page 18, line 20, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 154: In clause 48, page 18, line 21, leave out "Ombudsperson’s" and insert "Ombudsman’s". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 155: In clause 49, page 18, line 27, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 158: In clause 49, page 19, line 6, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 159: In clause 49, page 19, line 14, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 160: In clause 49, page 19, line 18, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 161: In clause 50, page 19, line 38, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 162: In clause 50, page 20, line 8, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 163: In clause 50, page 20, line 11, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 164: In clause 50, page 20, line 14, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 165: In clause 51, page 20, line 19, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 166: In clause 51, page 20, line 22, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 167: In clause 51, page 20, line 23, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 168: In clause 52, page 21, line 15, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 169: In clause 54, page 22, line 13, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 170: In clause 54, page 22, line 18, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 172: In clause 54, page 22, line 26, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 174: In clause 55, page 22, line 41, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 175: In clause 56, page 23, line 2, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 176: In clause 57, page 23, line 7, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 177: In clause 57, page 23, line 10, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 178: In clause 58, page 23, line 20, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 179: In clause 58, page 23, line 23, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 180: In clause 59, page 24, line 19, leave out first "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 181: In clause 59, page 24, line 19, leave out second "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 187: In clause 66, page 26, line 15, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 188: In schedule 1, page 27, line 7, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 189: In schedule 1, page 27, line 8, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 190: In schedule 1, page 27, line 11, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 191: In schedule 1, page 27, line 13, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 192: In schedule 1, page 27, line 16, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 193: In schedule 1, page 27, line 23, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 194: In schedule 1, page 27, line 27, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 195: In schedule 1, page 27, line 28, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 196: In schedule 1, page 27, line 30, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 197: In schedule 1, page 28, line 3, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 198: In schedule 1, page 28, line 10, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 199: In schedule 1, page 28, line 14, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 200: In schedule 1, page 28, line 18, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 201: In schedule 1, page 28, line 21, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 202: In schedule 1, page 28, line 27, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 203: In schedule 1, page 28, line 35, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 204: In schedule 1, page 28, line 40, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 205: In schedule 1, page 28, line 42, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 206: In schedule 1, page 29, line 1, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 207: In schedule 1, page 29, line 3, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 209: In schedule 1, page 29, line 7, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 210: In schedule 1, page 29, line 16, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 211: In schedule 1, page 29, line 20, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 212: In schedule 1, page 29, line 24, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 213: In schedule 1, page 29, line 32, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 214: In schedule 1, page 29, line 35, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 215: In schedule 1, page 29, line 36, leave out "Ombudsperson’s" and insert "Ombudsman’s". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 216: In schedule 1, page 30, line 2, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 217: In schedule 1, page 30, line 3, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 218: In schedule 1, page 30, line 5, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 219: In schedule 1, page 30, line 14, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 220: In schedule 1, page 30, line 16, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 221: In schedule 1, page 30, line 19, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 222: In schedule 1, page 30, line 21, leave out first "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 223: In schedule 1, page 30, line 21, leave out second "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 224: In schedule 1, page 30, line 24, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 225: In schedule 1, page 30, line 26, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 226: In schedule 1, page 30, line 28, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 227: In schedule 1, page 30, line 29, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 228: In schedule 1, page 30, line 30, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 229: In schedule 1, page 30, line 34, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 230: In schedule 1, page 30, line 35, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 231: In schedule 1, page 30, line 36, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 232: In schedule 1, page 30, line 37, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 233: In schedule 1, page 30, line 38, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 234: In schedule 1, page 30, line 39, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 235: In schedule 1, page 30, line 40, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 236: In schedule 1, page 30, line 41, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 238: In schedule 1, page 31, line 4, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 239: In schedule 1, page 31, line 6, leave out "Ombudsperson’s" and insert "Ombudsman’s". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 240: In schedule 1, page 31, line 8, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 241: In schedule 1, page 31, line 9, leave out first "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 242: In schedule 1, page 31, line 9, leave out second "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 243: In schedule 1, page 31, line 10, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 244: In schedule 1, page 31, line 11, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 245: In schedule 1, page 31, line 15, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 246: In schedule 1, page 31, line 19, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 247: In schedule 1, page 31, line 31, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 248: In schedule 1, page 31, line 34, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 249: In schedule 1, page 31, line 35, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 250: In schedule 1, page 31, line 36, leave out "Ombudsperson’s" and insert "Ombudsman’s". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 251: In schedule 1, page 31, line 37, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 252: In schedule 1, page 31, line 38, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 253: In schedule 1, page 32, line 1, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 254: In schedule 1, page 32, line 5, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 255: In schedule 1, page 32, line 9, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 256: In schedule 1, page 32, line 11, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 257: In schedule 1, page 32, line 14, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 258: In schedule 1, page 32, line 20, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 259: In schedule 1, page 32, line 22, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 260: In schedule 1, page 32, line 23, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 261: In schedule 1, page 32, line 33, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 263: In schedule 2, page 33, line 8, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 264: In schedule 2, page 33, line 20, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 265: In schedule 2, page 33, line 22, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 266: In schedule 2, page 33, line 27, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 267: In schedule 2, page 33, line 29, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 268: In schedule 2, page 33, line 30, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 269: In schedule 2, page 33, line 34, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 270: In schedule 2, page 33, line 41, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 271: In schedule 2, page 34, line 31, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 272: In schedule 2, page 34, line 35, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 273: In schedule 2, page 34, line 37, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 274: In schedule 2, page 35, line 10, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 275: In schedule 2, page 35, line 12, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 276: In schedule 2, page 35, line 13, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 277: In schedule 2, page 35, line 32, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 281: In schedule 2, page 36, line 14, leave out first "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 282: In schedule 2, page 36, line 14, leave out second "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 287: In schedule 5, page 40, line 23, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 290: In schedule 5, page 40, line 33, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 291: In schedule 6, page 41, line 12, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 292: In schedule 6, page 41, line 13, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 293: In schedule 6, page 42, line 9, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 297: In schedule 7, page 44, line 39, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 299: In schedule 7, page 45, line 10, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 300: In schedule 7, page 45, line 16, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 301: In schedule 7, page 45, line 25, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 302: In schedule 7, page 45, line 30, leave out "ombudspersons" and insert "ombudsmen". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 303: In schedule 7, page 45, line 36, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 304: In schedule 7, page 45, line 40, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 306: In schedule 7, page 45, line 42, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 307: In schedule 7, page 46, line 5, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 308: In schedule 7, page 46, line 8, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 309: In schedule 8, page 46, line 17, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 310: In schedule 8, page 46, line 21, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 311: In schedule 8, page 46, line 25, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 312: In schedule 8, page 46, line 27, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 313: In schedule 8, page 46, line 32, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 315: In schedule 8, page 46, line 38, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 317: In schedule 8, page 47, line 5, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 319: In schedule 8, page 47, line 11, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 320: In schedule 8, page 47, line 13, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 321: In schedule 8, page 47, line 20, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 322: In schedule 8, page 47, line 23, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 323: In schedule 8, page 47, line 27, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

No 325: In schedule 8, page 47, line 31, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Although we have 275 amendments to debate in group 1, I do not intend to detain the House too long on this matter. The amendments all relate to a change in the title of the new office from "ombudsperson" to "ombudsman". The Ad Hoc Committee considered the use of the term "ombudsperson" in the Bill and noted that it was the intention of the Committee for OFMDFM that the name should be unambiguously gender-neutral. The Ad Hoc Committee received evidence from the International Ombudsman Institute, the International Ombudsman Association, and the Welsh and Irish Ombudsmen that the term "ombudsman" was already gender-neutral. The word is of Scandinavian origin, and its original meaning in Swedish is "representative". We received a research paper on the etymology of the term. We were advised that "ombudsman" was a trusted and recognised brand and that to change the title could cause confusion among the public.

The Committee for OFMDFM was content with our suggestion that the title of the office should be "ombudsman". Therefore, at Consideration Stage, the Ad Hoc Committee brought forward amendments to the first instance of the term in the Bill — that is, in clause 1 — and to the short and long titles. At the time, I said that, depending on the outcome of that stage, it was the Committee’s intention to table amendments at Further Consideration Stage to the other affected clauses. The Assembly clearly indicated at Consideration Stage that it was content to have the title "ombudsman", so the Ad Hoc Committee tabled the remaining necessary 275 amendments. I commend them to the House.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Chomairle. I thank the Member for tabling the amendments and speaking to them. I will try to be brief on this matter, because there are a significant number of amendments, but they are designed to deal with the one issue, which is the name change.

Our view is quite simply that we would prefer the title to remain "ombudsperson". We understand the origin of the word "ombudsman" and the question relating to the gender issue and it being a gender-neutral word. By the same token, we believe that there has been an ongoing cultural change in the last number of years whereby people tend to move away from using the word "man", which most people here obviously accept has a gender definition. On that basis, we would prefer that the name remained "ombudsperson". We think that that is becoming much more prevalent in common parlance and the understanding of people throughout civic society. On that basis, we prefer to keep it that way and continue moving in that direction. Not only is it specifically related to this particular Bill, it is part of an ongoing, changing cultural public narrative around the use of gender definitions when people are addressed in the civic world. On that basis, a Cheann Comhairle, and we seek your guidance on this, we will oppose the amendments, but we have no desire to bring the House to Divisions on this matter. If we can go from what might be described as a "no", to a "low no", to a "no no", we are quite happy to do that. We seek your guidance on that matter.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

On behalf of the Committee, I begin by again thanking Lord Morrow and his Ad Hoc Committee for the work that it has put in on the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsperson Bill (NIPSO). I would also like to indicate that the Committee for OFMDFM supports the Ad Hoc Committee's further name-change amendments. As Lord Morrow pointed out, research was commissioned into the etymology of the term "ombudsman", and it became clear that the history of the word suggests that it is not gender-specific, which may be counter-intuitive, taking on board the recent comments of Mr Maskey. In the end, the Committee for OFMDFM was satisfied that the term "ombudsman" is not gender-specific, and there was cross-party support for the amendments proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee, notwithstanding, once again, the contribution that we have just heard from Mr Maskey on behalf of Sinn Féin.

The Committee for OFMDFM's amendment No 87 makes a change from "Ombudsperson" to "Ombudsman", which the Ad Hoc Committee's amendment No 86 also deals with. So, I would be grateful if that particular Ad Hoc Committee amendment — amendment No 86 — to clause 33 were not moved, because the Committee for OFMDFM's amendment No 87 will make the change to clause 33 as desired by the Ad Hoc Committee.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I think that we have reached a new meaning of the word "no". It goes from "no" to "low no" to "no no". So I think that we have moved on in the Assembly today.

In summing up, I wish simply to point out that the term "ombudsman" is already gender-neutral and is recognised as such right around the world. The Ad Hoc Committee agreed to bring forward changes; the OFMDFM Committee was content for it to do so; and, at Consideration Stage, the Assembly agreed in principle to such change, making a number of specific amendments. It therefore follows that the Assembly should make the remaining amendments that flow from that decision.

In relation to the matter that Mr Nesbitt has raised, we will deal with it when we get to that particular amendment.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I will now put the Question on amendment No 1, to leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". The Marshalled List contains a large number of these amendments, and I remind Members that they have already disposed of a few of these amendments at Consideration Stage. I will put the Question, and, if it is clear to me what the majority of the House wants, I will make a call on that basis. If Members wish to record their position, then, obviously, they can challenge my judgement at that point.

Let us move on.

Amendment No 1 agreed to.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Amendments Nos 2 to 11 have already been debated. With the leave of the Assembly, I will group these amendments for the Question.

Amendment No 2 made:

In page 1, line 6, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

Amendment No 3 made:

In page 1, line 8, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

Clause 2 (Independence)

Amendment No 4 made:

In page 1, line 10, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

Amendment No 5 made:

In page 2, line 2, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

Amendment No 6 made:

In page 2, line 5, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

Amendment No 7 made:

In page 2, line 7, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

Clause 3 (Appointment)

Amendment No 8 made:

In page 2, line 11, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

Amendment No 9 made:

In page 2, line 14, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

Amendment No 10 made:

In page 2, line 19, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

Clause 4 (Abolition of existing offices)

Amendment No 11 made:

In page 2, line 28, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

We now come to the second group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 12, it will be convenient to debate the other amendments in this group. These deal with procedural and technical amendments. Members should note that amendment No 12 is a paving amendment to amendment No 283.

Amendment No 289 is consequential to amendment No 288. Amendment No 295 is consequential to amendment No 294. I call the Chairperson of the OFMDFM Committee, Mr Nesbitt, to move amendment No 12 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I beg to move amendment No 12:

In page 2, line 28, after "transitional" insert "and savings" — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 21: In clause 8, page 4, line 11, leave out "clinical or". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 28: In clause 12, page 5, line 5, leave out "First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly" and insert "Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 29: In clause 12, page 5, line 11, leave out paragraph (a). — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 35: In clause 16, page 6, line 36, leave out "general medical" and insert "primary medical". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 36: In clause 16, page 7, line 1, leave out "personal medical" and insert "primary medical". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 38: In clause 18, page 7, line 27, leave out "the". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 40: In clause 18, page 7, line 30, after "courses" insert "provided or". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 43: In clause 19, page 8, line 13, leave out "First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly" and insert

"Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 44: In clause 19, page 8, line 16, at end insert

"(4) Before making an order under this section, the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister must consult the Ombudsman and any other person it thinks appropriate.".

— [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 52: In clause 22, page 9, line 13, at end insert

"(3) Before making an order under this section, the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister must consult the Ombudsman and any other person it thinks appropriate.". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 87: In clause 33, page 13, line 3, leave out "or any member of staff of the Ombudsperson" and insert

", any member of staff of the Ombudsman or any person authorised in accordance with paragraph 14(2) of Schedule 1". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 106: In clause 38, page 15, line 7, leave out "subsection (1) applies" and insert

"a listed authority has been notified in accordance with subsection (1)". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 139: In clause 46, page 17, line 34, leave out subsection (2). — [Mr Lunn.]

No 151: In clause 48, page 18, line 17, leave out paragraph (c) and insert

"(c) publication by a person aggrieved, in the course of communication with the Ombudsman, of any statement made by the person aggrieved in connection with an investigation,". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 156: In clause 49, page 18, line 31, after "information" insert

"obtained by the Ombudsman which is". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 157: In clause 49, page 18, line 32, after "information" insert

"obtained by the Ombudsman which is". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 171: In clause 54, page 22, line 21, leave out "clinical or". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 173: In clause 55, page 22, line 37, leave out "clinical or". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 182: In clause 64, page 25, line 11, at end insert

"(a) section 1 (including Schedule 1),

(b) section 3,". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 183: In clause 64, page 25, line 17, at end insert

"(g) in Schedule 2, paragraphs 5, 11 and 12.". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 184: In clause 64, page 25, line 18, leave out subsection (3). — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 185: In clause 64, page 25, line 38, after "to" insert "the board of governors of". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 186: In clause 64, page 25, line 41, after "Schedule 1 (" insert "the board of governors of". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 208: In schedule 1, page 29, line 3, leave out "appointed as". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 237: In schedule 1, page 31, line 1, leave out "appointment of". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 262: In schedule 2, page 33, line 7, leave out "appointed" and insert "transfer". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 278: In schedule 2, page 36, line 2, after "where the" insert "relevant". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 279: In schedule 2, page 36, line 8, leave out "the" and insert "an". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 280: In schedule 2, page 36, line 10, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert

"(2) On and after the transfer day, the complaint may be made or referred under this Act, and the provisions of this Act apply for the purposes of making, referring, investigating and dealing with that complaint, save that if the complaint is made or referred within the time period required under?—

(a) the Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, where the complaint could have been made or referred to the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland,

(b) the Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, where the complaint could have been made or referred to the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints,

the complaint will be deemed to comply with the time period required under this Act.". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 283: In schedule 2, page 36, line 15, at end insert

"COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS

12.—(1) The repeal by this Act of the Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 does not affect the definition of “public appointment” in the Commissioner for Public Appointments (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not affect the exercise of prerogative powers in respect of the Commissioner for Public Appointments referred to in section 23(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 284: In schedule 3, page 36, line 29, leave out from ", a joint committee" to end of line 31. — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 285: In schedule 3, page 38, line 39, leave out

"and any committee or sub-committee of a new town commission". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 286: In schedule 5, page 40, line 13, leave out "56,". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 288: In schedule 5, page 40, line 31, after "maladministration" insert

"and that such injustice has not been remedied, and". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 289: In schedule 5, page 40, line 32, leave out head (b). — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 294: In schedule 6, page 43, line 30, leave out heads (b) and (c). — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 295: In schedule 6, page 43, line 37, leave out "sub-paragraph" and insert "sub-paragraphs (2) to". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 296: In schedule 6, page 43, line 39, at end insert

"(f) in sub-paragraph (6) leave out ‘(4)’ and insert ‘(1)’.". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 298: In schedule 7, page 45, line 6, at end insert

"and

(c) as if in section 31(5) the references to section 32(1) and (2) had no effect." — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 314: In schedule 8, page 46, line 35, after "Equality Commission," insert

"the board of governors of". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 316: In schedule 8, page 47, line 1, after "Northern Ireland department," insert

"the board of governors of". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 318: In schedule 8, page 47, line 7, after "Northern Ireland department," insert

"the board of governors of". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 324: In schedule 8, page 47, line 29, after "the Commissioner," insert

"the board of governors of". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 326: In schedule 9, page 49, line 26, leave out "paragraph 14" and insert

"

paragraphs 13 and 14

" — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

No 327: In schedule 9, page 49, leave out from line 35 to the end of line 1 on page 50. — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

The Committee has brought amendment No 12 in conjunction with amendment No 283, which ensures that the definition of "public appointment" in the Commissioner for Public Appointments (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 will not be affected by the repeal of the Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. The Commissioner for Public Appointments Order refers to the schedule to the Commissioner for Complaints Order. The effect is to save the schedule for the purposes of the public appointments legislation. As a result, it will be appropriate that the title to schedule 2 indicates that it includes savings provisions. Amendment No 12 changes the reference to the title of schedule 2, which appears in clause 4, to refer to "savings".

The Assembly agreed OFMDFM Committee amendments at Consideration Stage to remove references to "clinical judgement" in the context of health and social care so that the Bill would simply refer to "professional judgement", which will encompass "clinical judgement". Amendments Nos 21, 171 and 173 will therefore deal with three surviving references to "clinical", which can now be removed.

Amendment No 28 gives effect to a change recommended by the Examiner of Statutory Rules. It provides that the order-making power in clause 12 to amend schedule 3, which is the list of authorities within the NIPSO's remit, will lie, as is normal, with the Department and not with the Minister, or, in this case, with the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, rather than with the two Ministers acting jointly.

Amendment No 43 makes a similar change to clause 19 in respect of the order-making powers to update schedule 4. Amendment No 44 to clause 19 requires that OFMDFM consult the NIPSO and any other person OFMDFM thinks appropriate before making such an order. Amendment No 52 makes a similar change to clause 22, which deals with schedule 5 — the schedule of excluded matters.

Amendment No 29 deals with clause 12(3), which places some limitations on the types of bodies that can be added to schedule 3 by OFMDFM order. One of the types of bodies that could be added was a Northern Ireland Department. This was needed when schedule 3 listed individual Departments by name. However, it now refers to them generically as "a Northern Ireland department". So, whatever name changes may ensue, any Northern Ireland Department will automatically be in the schedule of listed authorities, and clause 12(3)(a) is therefore no longer needed.

Amendments Nos 35 and 36 touch on clause 16 and update wording in light of changes to health legislation. Thus, references to "general medical services" and "personal medical services" will become "primary medical services". Amendment No 286 removes an out-of-date reference to health legislation in schedule 5 — the schedule of excluded matters.

Amendments Nos 38 and 40 touch on clause 18. Amendment No 38 removes the "the" in front of University of Ulster, and amendment No 40 makes it clear that students enrolled in courses provided by the universities are covered.

Amendment No 87 is to clause 33, which deals with obstruction and contempt of the NIPSO or any member of the NIPSO's staff. This amendment extends clause 33 to encompass any other person authorised by the NIPSO under paragraph 14(2) of schedule 1 and therefore not just the NIPSO's staff.

Amendment No 106 amends clause 38 to make explicit that the obligation for a listed authority to comply with a model of complaints-handling procedure — a model CHP — applies where the NIPSO has specified a listed authority to which a model CHP is relevant and has notified that authority accordingly.

Amendment No 139, tabled by Mr Lunn and Mr Maginness, has been considered by the OFMDFM Committee, which cannot support it. The amendment would remove entirely the power in clause 46 of the Bill for the NIPSO to lay before the Assembly a special report when injustice has been sustained by a person aggrieved and that injustice has not been, nor will be, remedied. The power for an ombudsman to make a special report to the legislature in such circumstances is common to all the UK ombudsmen. It would seem very strange, to say the least, if the Assembly were to establish an ombudsman with very effective powers of investigation yet, when the ombudsman finds that a person has suffered injustice that has not and will not be remedied, the ombudsman will be stripped of the power to lay a special report before the Assembly. Surely, the Assembly must be informed.

Particular concerns were raised by the British Medical Association and others during the Ad Hoc Committee's scrutiny of the Bill about the effect that the power might have on GPs and others. The OFMDFM Committee sought advice on those concerns, and we are confident that the power can be used appropriately by the NIPSO and in a way that is compatible with the convention rights of the listed authorities that may be affected. The OFMDFM Committee has also considered special reports that were issued by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in England, which named a GP and a dentist. Some of the reports issued by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman have, similarly, named individuals, and the world is still turning on its axis. Therefore, the OFMDFM Committee cannot support the amendment.

Amendment No 151 deals with clause 48 of the Bill, which affords protection from actions for defamation to facilitate the investigation of and reporting on complaints made by a person aggrieved. The amendment will ensure that the absolute privilege that is provided to the person aggrieved is limited to statements that are made in the course of communication with the ombudsman.

Amendment Nos 156 and 157 clarify that the information in question in clause 49(1)(b) and clause 49(1)(c) is information that is obtained by the ombudsman.

Amendment Nos 182, 183 and 184 touch on clause 64 of the Bill, which deals with commencement. The main purpose is to ensure that those provisions of the Bill that were to commence one month after Royal Assent will now commence on the day after Royal Assent and that all the necessary preparatory steps can be taken in the run-up to commencement of the substantive complaints and investigations provisions on 1 April 2016.

Amendments Nos 185, 186, 314, 316, 318 and 324 amend provisions where the Bill refers to grant-aided schools in line with the changes that were made at Consideration Stage; in other words, to refer to "the board of governors of" grant-aided schools.

Amendment Nos 208 and 237 remove references to the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Ombudsman being appointed, as there is no appointment as such. Rather, the person who is appointed as the NIPSO will automatically become the NIJAO.

Members may recall that references to "appointed day" were changed at Consideration Stage to "transfer day". However, one reference to "appointed day" survived and amendment No 262 deals with that omission.

Amendment Nos 278 and 279 make technical changes to paragraphs 9 and 10 of schedule 2.

Amendment No 280 will substitute paragraph 10(2) of schedule 2 to make transitional provision to avoid a person aggrieved being disadvantaged as a result of the change from a 12-month time limit for bringing a complaint to a six-month time limit.

Amendment Nos 284 and 285 remove some unnecessary references to committees in the list of authorities in schedule 3.

Amendment Nos 288 and 289 make technical changes to schedule 5.

Amendment Nos 294, 295 and 296 deal with schedule 6 to the Bill and amend provisions of schedule 3A to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, which deal with reporting by the Judicial Appointments Ombudsman or NIJAO.

The Bill provides that the NIJAO is to lay an annual report before the Assembly. The effect of the amendments is to simplify the existing provision by the removal of the power to direct the NIJAO to deal with a matter in his or her annual report.

Amendment No 298 amends schedule 7 to the Bill, which deals with amendments to Part 9 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014. That provides for the investigation of complaints of breaches of the local government code of conduct. The power of the NIPSO under clause 31 to obtain information, documents and so on is borrowed by the Local Government Act for investigations under the local government code of conduct, with some qualifications, as set out in schedule 7. However, clause 31(5) refers to provisions in clause 32, and clause 32 does not apply to code of conduct investigations. The amendment makes it clear that clause 31(5) applies as if the references to clause 32 had no effect.

Amendment Nos 326 and 327 are to schedule 9 to the Bill, which deals with repeals. Amendment No 326 updates the repeals to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 in light of changes in respect of the Judicial Appointments Ombudsman. Finally, amendment No 327 removes a repeal provision that is no longer necessary.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Committee did not have sight of the amendments in this group prior to the formal clause-by-clause scrutiny and has, therefore, not taken a view on them. The Committee did, however, consider an issue that relates to amendment No 139 in the names of Mr Lunn and Mr Maginness, so I will briefly set out the Committee's position.

Amendment No 139 would have the effect of removing the ombudsman's power to lay a special report before the Assembly when an injustice has been sustained by a person aggrieved, and the injustice has not or will not be remedied or adequately remedied. The Committee considered that power and noted evidence that welcomed the provisions in what is now clause 46 as a means of strengthening the office of the ombudsman. Such evidence was received from the International Ombudsman Institute, the Law Society of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. However, the Committee also noted the concerns of the Medical Defence Union and the British Medical Association that such a power could be construed as coercive and have significant reputational impact — for example, for a general practitioner.

The Committee gave careful consideration to those concerns. It noted that the Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 already provides that the ombudsman may lay a special report before the Assembly when an injustice has been sustained by a person as a result of maladministration, and that injustice has not been or will not be remedied.

The Committee also noted that the ombudsman, as a public authority, will be required by section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to act in a manner that is compatible with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, including article 6 on the right to a fair hearing and article 8 on the right to a private and family life, and to ensure that it discharges its functions in a manner that is procedurally fair. However, despite that, the Committee expressed concerns that that power could be construed as coercive and that such a report had the potential to have a detrimental impact on a medical practitioner. The Committee, therefore, recommended that the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, as sponsor of the Bill, should satisfy itself that there are proper safeguards and procedural fairness before any such power is exercised. However, having made that recommendation, the Committee was content with what is now clause 46.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I have just a few words on this group of amendments. The Chairperson has dealt with amendment Nos 21, 171 and 173. For the record, as a party grouping, we were satisfied that taking out the word "clinical" was dealt with in previous discussions, but it has been replaced by "professional", so it is a consequential change necessitated by previous discussions. We are satisfied that the ability of the ombudsperson to do his or her job in the context of any professional issues that are raised is dealt with adequately in the Bill. As has been pointed out, our view is that amendment No 139 is completely superfluous to requirements, as it is dealt with elsewhere.

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

I will deal specifically with amendment No 139, which Members who spoke previously have focused on. First, under article 19 of the Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, there is a provision in relation to reports to the Assembly. The Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee referred to that. It states:

"The Commissioner shall annually lay before the Assembly a general report on the performance of his functions under this Order and may from time to time lay such other reports before the Assembly as he thinks fit."

That may or may not include a special report. However, I do not believe that that particular article makes provision for a special report. We all accept that the annual report is the ordinary annual report that any public body would make to the Assembly. However, a special report to the Assembly is, I suppose, in common parlance, a name or shame type of report. In other words, a body or an individual, which is my concern here, may be named or shamed in that report. I believe that to be a very sensitive function, if it is to be carried out at all, for any ombudsman, and something that we have to look at closely in the round and scrutinise. We cannot just give blanket permission to an ombudsman to make a special report that could — as the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee very fairly pointed out — have an adverse reputational impact. In other words, the person who is reported could well suffer quite significant reputational or professional damage. That is particularly so if a person is living in a small community such as a village or a small town. The Assembly must consider that very carefully today, because we must realise what power we are giving the ombudsman.

I know that the provision that we are looking at today, "Reports to the Assembly", is framed differently. Clause 46(2) states:

"If, after conducting an investigation (other than one under section 8)"

— I have no problem with the one under section 8 —

"it appears to the Ombudsperson that ... an injustice has been sustained by a person aggrieved, and ... the injustice has not been, or will not be, remedied or adequately remedied",

the ombudsman may lay a special report before the Assembly.

I want to look at that particular subclause because, given the power that the Ombudsman's Office has, I am not convinced that there could be such an injustice that will not be adequately remedied. From reading the Bill, I understand that if a complaint is made against an individual — I refer particularly to medical practitioners — and a settlement is proposed by the ombudsman, who also makes certain recommendations, the person complained against does not have to accept those recommendations. However, in normal circumstances, the person complained about does accept the recommendations and a settlement is entered into — normally an apology, and maybe a sum of money.

In circumstances where the person complained against rejects that and says, "No. I am not going to do that, because I do not think that I have been found to be reprehensible", the complainant can go to the County Court. If I am wrong about that, let someone tell me. Previously, individual medical practitioners could not be brought to the County Court, but I believe that, under this Bill, they can be. If that is the case, where is the lack of remedy in relation to somebody whose complaint has been upheld? Why can that person not go to the County Court and get the necessary remedy? My point is that clause 46(2)(b) states:

"the injustice has not been, or will not be, remedied or adequately remedied".

I cannot understand the sense of that paragraph.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank Mr Maginness for giving way. I want to deal with the logic of the argument. The whole idea of having an ombudsperson or ombudsman is to avoid legal routes and stay out of the County Court, the High Court, the courts and the criminal justice system. It is an alternative procedure for settling disputes.

As Mr Maginness rightly says, this is a very sensitive function to be exercised by the NIPSO. He argues that blanket permission should not be given to the NIPSO to publish special reports. He is correct. In fact, and he quoted the relevant passage, there is no such thing as blanket permission. Rather, the NIPSO can lay a special report only if two criteria are met: first, he must be satisfied that an injustice has been sustained by the aggrieved person; and, secondly, he must be convinced that the injustice has not been, and will not be, adequately remedied by the person responsible for the individual being aggrieved. Only under those circumstances can he lay a special report.

Mr Maginness is quite right to highlight the reputational damage that could accrue to the individual GP, dentist or whomever is the subject of the special report. However, I ask Mr Maginness to recognise that it cuts both ways. If the NIPSO starts to lay special reports that end up causing reputational damage to his office, this body will not be slow, nor will the County Courts, to highlight the fact that the NIPSO is doing so without due care and consideration. That would cause massive reputational damage to the NIPSO.

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

Yes, and I take the latter point that you made. With regard to the current ombudsman, there is no suggestion that there would be anything other than a proper and thorough report that was fairly and properly carried out. I pay tribute to the current holder of the office because he has carried out a very good job that we should all applaud. However, we are making law. We are not giving a character reference for any individual or body. We have to make law that meets the concerns of everybody, and we have to strike a balance. As I understand it, article 19 allows for a report to the Assembly under the 1996 Order. This, however, is a new element: it reflects article 19, but it is a new element and means a special report. I will come to that in a minute.

I want to go back to the point that you made about injustice. Yes, injustice is the first leg of this aspect; the second leg is that that injustice has not been adequately remedied. I go back to the original point that a person can go to court and receive the proper relief that that person deserves in the court, whether it be money, an apology or whatever the terms that are concerned. That is an important feature. It is a unique feature of the ombudsman's office here in Northern Ireland; that power does not exist elsewhere. That power is there for a specific reason. If a settlement does not come into being, if it is not accepted by the person complained about, the complainant can go to the County Court and get a remedy. Whenever the person goes to the County Court, you do not have to rehearse all the evidence that has been derived in the case. The evidence of the ombudsman is sufficient to establish the claim in the County Court. You are effectively talking about a monetary element that the court can determine so that it is just and right in all circumstances.

The point that I make is that the power that we have here as far as the County Court is concerned is unique and is also very easy to access. The County Court is not like the High Court; you just go to the County Court, and the hearing takes place. It is a fairly straightforward process. On the point that I made about article 19, it seems to me that, under clause 46, this is in fact a new power. I do not understand why this new power is being introduced.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Thank you. I call — sorry.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I think that the Member has given way rather than completed his —

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

Yes, I have given way.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I have a couple of follow-up points. First, we are trying to put a NIPSO in place as an alternative to the law courts. If a GP, or whoever, is subject to a special report, the aggrieved person can go to the County Court, but it is at their own expense and risk. We are trying to avoid that; we are trying to offer an alternative process through the NIPSO. When the Committee considered the proposed amendment from Mr Lunn and Mr Maginness, we were conscious that the NIPSO will have to operate with due consideration for convention rights. There will have to be a sturdy and robust consideration of whether it is proper for the NIPSO to bring forward a special report. There are safeguards before publication. There is then the consideration of the reputational risk that the NIPSO is bringing upon themselves should they go down this extraordinary route.

My final point is that recourse to the County Court is held by the current Commissioner for Complaints rather than by the ombudsman. With the Bill, we were trying to bring together the two offices to offer something much more modern and easily understood by the public. The Committee also took a policy decision that, where there is a difference in the powers of the ombudsman and the Commissioner for Complaints, we would always level up in favour of the consumer, the voter, the electorate or the citizen.

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

I accept the point that you are making. The Bill is an attempt to do that. All that I am saying is that I think that, in this instance, we are going too far in relation to special reports. As far as the person going to the County Court is concerned, they go, as far as I can see, at no risk whatsoever in legal terms. It may have a cost risk, but I cannot see how any order of costs would be given against the person because their case will be successful in any event. So I do not really regard that as issue.

Let us go to the point that Mr Nesbitt made in his submission as Chair of the OFMDFM Committee.

Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention are involved in this. Article 6, the right to a fair trial, is engaged. It is not a trial in the sense that you go to court and are in front of a judge and jury, and so forth; it is a trial in the sense that your actions are being arbitrated upon. Therefore, it is very important, when we give these sorts of powers, that we look at them very carefully and seek to protect article 6 rights, as well as article 8 rights, the right to a private life, a family and so forth. All those things need to be protected. It is insufficient for us, as an Assembly, to say, "Well, we'll leave it up to somebody else to do this". That is, effectively, what we are doing. There is nothing in the Bill, in relation to this provision, that provides adequate safeguards. If there were adequate safeguards in the Bill, there might be no need to remove this, but that is an additional point.

To be fair to the current ombudsman and his office, they have said that the special reports could be anonymised and that that would protect the identify of the individual involved. We live in a very, very small and close-knit society, and it does not take very much for an individual to be clearly identified, even if the name or names of some individuals are not disclosed. So, despite anonymisation, there is still a problem. I accept the bona fides of the current ombudsman when he says that he assumes that his office would continue to view this in the same manner. I have no doubt about that; but he cannot vouch for somebody else who will be his successor.

As Lord Morrow pointed out, this is, in effect, coercive, or could be coercive, but not in all circumstances; the potential is there. We have to protect against that. I simply say to the Assembly that there are not sufficient safeguards here to protect the individual, and we risk the creation of an adverse impact on somebody's professional or reputational standing. I do not think that that is good enough for us as an Assembly. We should be good legislators; we should scrutinise things carefully, and we should be protective. I am very jealous and protective of the rights of complainants. Their rights should be protected. However, I do not see how this provision advances the rights of any complainant when they have an alternative and sufficient remedy — a remedy that does not exist in any other jurisdiction within these islands. That is why I and Mr Lunn, who also served on the Ad Hoc Committee, have brought this amendment. We know that we are up against it; nonetheless, we think that the merits of the amendment are on our side. We hope that the Assembly will reasonably and rationally consider what we say, because we believe that the amendment is important in protecting individual practitioners. We are not protecting the big trusts and big public organisations. They are not protected, but the individual should be protected. Thank you.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I will try not to repeat everything that Mr Maginness said, but it would probably make for another good speech. I must say that I agree with Lord Morrow that the Ad Hoc Committee, certainly initially, did have a certain amount of sympathy for this particular proposed amendment. As a Committee, I am not so sure that we agreed not to run with an amendment. We kind of agreed that the primary Committee on this would be the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, and we tacitly accepted what its attitude would be. My problem with it and the reason why I pushed it at the Ad Hoc Committee and since is, frankly, this: what is the point of clause 46(2)? Mr Maginness mentioned naming and shaming. That is descriptive language, but it is perhaps not far off the mark here.

In a way, clause 46 relates to another amendment that we will probably come to in the next group. If I may, I will just refer obliquely to it. It is amendment No 75 on representation at the ombudsman's hearing. You could have a situation — we are really speaking about the medical profession — where a doctor is brought before the ombudsman because of a complaint. At the moment, it is at the ombudsman's discretion whether he is allowed to have legal representation or not. That is a discussion for another day. It may well be that you will have an ombudsman's hearing involving a complaint against a general practitioner, doctor or dentist where there has not been legal representation. As Mr Maginness, rightly, says, there are legal remedies if the injustice is not or will not be remedied or adequately remedied in the opinion of the ombudsman. The complainant has the option, as he would have had in the first place, to go to the County Court and seek redress, bearing in mind that the ombudsman's decision is a recommendation, not a ruling or an award.

I am more concerned about the situation around whom I call "the defendant" in these situations — the doctor who is complained against — and his rights. I probably keep on saying "he", but I mean he or she. I do not think that Mr Maginness mentioned it, but the redress that that doctor would have is that they can seek judicial review of the ombudsman's decision. On either side of the discussion, legal redress is already available. There is actually a judicial review pending on quite a serious case. I think that it is JR 55 if anybody wants to keep track of it. It is not coming up until March 2016. It involves a considerable sum of money and the potential for considerable reputational damage, but the person who has been complained against feels strongly enough to take it to judicial review.

I agree with some of the things that Mr Nesbitt said. The idea here is not to drive people into court but to keep people out of court. That is fair enough; it is what the ombudsman's procedure is for. The ombudsman has the ability and power to make a recommendation for an amount, which I believe is unlimited at the moment. His procedure may not be a court in the legal sense of the word, but it has the status of a court, and it certainly has the ability to do as much damage. It could potentially damage the reputation of a defendant as severely as a court. I do not mean that in a disrespectful way to the present ombudsman, who I think has done a terrific job in his tenure.

Clause 46, first of all, states that:

"The Ombudsperson must lay before the Assembly annually a general report".

Nobody is arguing with that. We do not have a problem with investigations under section 8, which, for the uninitiated, are investigations that the ombudsman has brought on his own initiative. Nobody has referred to subsection (4) of clause 46, which states that:

"The Ombudsperson may lay before the Assembly such other reports on the exercise of the Ombudsperson's functions as the Ombudsperson thinks fit."

That is pretty wide.

I go back to subsection (2), which is the one that we would like to see removed. The effect of it would be that, if the ombudsman thinks that redress is not being provided or is not likely to be provided, he can do a special report to the Assembly and whether it is anonymised, redacted or otherwise it does not make a lot of difference. Mr Maginness is right; in the small country we live in, it is difficult to conceal identities. The effect would be that the report, I believe, in the case of a medical situation, would come to the Health Committee. What on earth is the Health Committee supposed to do with such a report? I will give way to anybody who wants to tell me. All the Committee can do is note the report; it cannot enforce it. It can comment on it, but you would like to think that, in the case of potential reputational damage, it might not wish to comment on the report. The fact is that the action of the ombudsman passing a special report, only on a very special occasion, greatly adds to the weight and effect of the action of having done it. The report goes to the Health Committee, and what is it supposed to do?

The only thing that such an action has the potential to do is to put pressure on the person who was complained against to settle, even though they do not feel that the ombudsman's decision was correct. I am thinking more of the ombudsman, but you could have a situation where a defendant has decided to go to judicial review and, at the same time, perhaps, the ombudsman is preparing a special report. I do not think that there is any need for this. I take note of the fact that other jurisdictions seem to see it differently, but frankly, Mr Speaker, it would not be the first time that we had gone against the practice of other jurisdictions; in fact, we make quite a habit of it here. It is not so important from that point of view.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank Mr Lunn for giving way. I just want to make a couple of points, beginning with his last assertion. He has acknowledged that, if we were to remove the subsection, we would be out of step with ombudsmen in adjacent jurisdictions. Is he aware of any pressure coming in any of those jurisdictions to remove the ability of the other ombudsmen to make special reports? The OFMDFM Committee is not aware of any such pressure.

Perhaps Mr Lunn can tell us whether there would be an enhanced or diminished degree of reputational damage if the aggrieved person were to go to the County Court and prevail over the GP, dentist or whomever they have a grievance against, as opposed to that person being named in a special report to the House. It seems to me that, if you go to a County Court and you lose, the reputational damage will be absolutely massive together with, potentially, some punitive costs.

Finally, Mr Lunn referred to JR 55, which the Committee has considered on a number of occasions. We do not know the outcome as yet, but we know that it is being judged against a different law, so there will be no implications from JR 55 if the NIPSO Bill becomes law.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank Mr Nesbitt for that. As far as the comparison with somebody going to the County Court is concerned, let us put it the other way round. If somebody wants to make a complaint against a doctor, they can do it through the County Court. They do not need to go through the ombudsman. If they go to the ombudsman and the complainant feels aggrieved that the recommended redress has not been provided, obviously they can go to the County Court. Anybody who goes to the County Court in this country would be well aware that they have no protection from publicity or reputational damage. That would be a decision for the doctor, GP, dentist or whomever to make. They would have to make the decision whether the ombudsman was involved or not.

I do not see the point of this step — this link in the chain — where the ombudsman can effectively put pressure on a defendant to settle rather than run the risk of going to the County Court. It does not seem necessary. You are leaning forward, Mr Maginness.

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

I thank the Member for giving way. Mr Nesbitt raised a point about other jurisdictions that have the power to make a special report, but those jurisdictions do not have the power that currently resides with the ombudsman in our legislation. If the person or body complained about does not settle, the complainant can go to the County Court. No other jurisdiction has that power, and that is a very good reason to make us an exception.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank Mr Maginness for that: it probably illustrates why he is a barrister and I am not. The point is well made. I will go back to it, but I will not keep talking for the sake of it. I would rather listen to people justify why the clause has to be included than have us try to justify why it should be excluded. The weight of argument and the weight of legal reasoning are on our side. The weight of opinion on the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and perhaps, eventually, the Ad Hoc Committee is that the subsection is in some way harmless, but I would like to think that we have demonstrated that it has the potential to be far from harmless. I keep going back to the point that there is no need for it. Somebody justify to me why it needs to be in there, rather than the other way around.

I was going to stop, but I will give way to you.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank Mr Lunn. I will have one more go at this: the rationale behind having a Public Services Ombudsman is that we are providing an alternative to the courts. You have conceded that the person who is complained about has no protection from adverse publicity if they end up in the County Court. We are trying to offer an alternative to that, and we feel that there is a value in the person complained about, where the ombudsman says that they are responsible for an injustice and have not remedied and will not remedy that injustice, having the prospect of knowing that they could be named in a special report.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

In 95 cases out of 100, the clause will not have to be invoked, and they are not all medical situations. I would like to think that it will never have to be used. However, there are bound to be situations in which a defending doctor feels aggrieved about the outcome of an ombudsman's investigation and perhaps about the size of the award or the amount of redress, which, as somebody already said, could extend from a handshake and an apology to a five-figure sum of money changing hands.

As I started off by saying, in the legislation as it is framed, there might not have been an opportunity for legal representation. I do not want to talk about another clause when Members should be talking about this one, but, that having been said, the ombudsman currently has the discretion to allow for legal representation. Halfway through his own process, he might decide that that is necessary, by which time the defendant might have done himself some disservice with the outcome, which he might not have done had he had legal advice. The two things are linked, if you do not mind me linking them publicly.

I cannot think of much else to say. I really believe that this is an unnecessary clause in otherwise good legislation. I have no quarrel with any other amendment that I am aware of, except perhaps amendment No 75, which we will come to. I hope that the House will think about clause 46, and, if anyone else is going to speak to it, I would like to hear their justification for including it.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

The Chair of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister has set out clearly the Committee amendments. They are largely technical in nature and will improve definitions and processes that will be created by the Bill. He also set out clearly the Committee's position with regard to amendment No 139. I therefore commend the Committee for OFMDFM's positions on the amendments to the Assembly.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Thank you. That was short and sweet.

Amendment No 12 agreed to.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Amendment Nos 13 to 20 have already been debated. By leave of the Assembly, I will group the amendments for the Question.

Clause 5 (Power to investigate complaints made by a person aggrieved)

Amendment No 13 made:

In page 2, line 34, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

Clause 6 (Power to investigate complaints referred by a listed authority)

Amendment No 14 made:

In page 3, line 10, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

Clause 7 (Acting on behalf of a person aggrieved)

Amendment No 15 made:

In page 3, line 28, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

Amendment No 16 made:

In page 3, line 31, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

Amendment No 17 made:

In page 3, line 33, leave out first "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

Amendment No 18 made:

In page 3, line 33, leave out second "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

Clause 8 (Power to investigate on own initiative)

Amendment No 19 made:

In page 3, line 39, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

Amendment No 20 made:

In page 4, line 7, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

Amendment No 21 made:

In page 4, line 11, leave out "clinical or". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Amendment Nos 22 to 27 have already been debated. By leave of the Assembly, I will group the amendments for the Question.

Clause 9 (Criteria for own initiative investigations)

Amendment No 22 made:

In page 4, line 16, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

Amendment No 23 made:

In page 4, line 19, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

Clause 10 (Alternative resolution of complaints)

Amendment No 24 made:

In page 4, line 21, leave out first "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

Amendment No 25 made:

In page 4, line 21, leave out second "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

Amendment No 26 made:

In page 4, line 24, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

Clause 11 (Purposes of investigation)

Amendment No 27 made:

In page 4, line 32, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

Clause 12 (Listed authorities)

Amendment No 28 made:

In page 5, line 5, leave out "First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly" and insert "Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister". — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

Amendment No 29 made:

In page 5, line 11, leave out paragraph (a). — [Mr Nesbitt (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

Amendment No 30 made:

In page 5, line 33, leave out "Ombudsperson" and insert "Ombudsman". — [Lord Morrow (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill).]

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

The next item on the Order Paper is Question Time. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 1.53 pm.

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

Oral Answers to Questions — Education

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

Questions 2, 4 and 6 have been withdrawn.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

1. Mr Humphrey asked the Minister of Education to outline the measures he has taken, and plans to take, to address educational underachievement in working-class communities. (AQO 9202/11-16)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am determined to take action to break the link between social disadvantage and educational underachievement wherever it exists. I have the correct policies in place, and those are being implemented with renewed vigour. I have provided additional resources to schools serving those most at risk of underachieving. Funded programmes have been implemented to improve literacy and numeracy outcomes. I have also provided funding to support programmes aimed at improving school/community links. The Education Works programme highlights the vital role that parents can play in helping their child to do well at school and improve their life chances.

I am encouraged when I see communities where formal education has not traditionally been prized now recognising that education is the path to success in the future. Other programmes impacting positively on addressing educational inequalities and underachievement include the revised SEN and inclusion framework; the full implementation of the entitlement tramework; Sure Start; the early years fund; and the Achieving Belfast and Achieving Derry-Bright Futures programmes. However, while some schools persist in the use of academic selection, we will be unable to eradicate social division. The political proponents of social and academic selection must start accepting responsibility for all its outcomes, especially for working-class children. The challenge of tackling inequalities, be they educational, health or economic, is one that we all face, and success will depend on all stakeholders working together to achieve greater equality in society.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I also thank the Minister for the interest he has taken in education in the greater Shankill and north Belfast area.

The Minister will be aware of the children and young people's zone in greater Shankill. He will also be aware of the recent report by the Equality Commission that presented inequalities in education based on data from 2011-12. Recently, my colleagues and I met Alan Logan and Emlyn Wright from the two Model Schools. Will the Minister join with me in congratulating the principals of those schools, and of Hazelwood College in north Belfast, on the leadership that they are giving? Is the Minister prepared to give greater resources for the retention of the extended schools programme, which is so hugely needed in constituencies like North Belfast, inner East Belfast, South Belfast and West Belfast?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I have no difficulty in acknowledging the hard work of the principals in the schools that you mentioned. It is clear when you see connections between schools and communities that the educational well-being of children in the area improves. There are many good examples of that. I have significantly increased funding to schools in areas of social deprivation over the past year. It will take a while for that money to be managed in a way that shows the positive outcomes for children that we want to see; I am not expecting an immediate return on it. That will take a number of years, and schools, the Department and the Education Authority are working together to plan towards that.

I have done my best in difficult budgetary times to protect the extended schools budget. We face another difficult budget scenario for 2016-17 and beyond, but, as long as I am in post, I can assure you that I will do my utmost to protect the extended schools budget.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. I welcome the original questioner's acceptance of the effect of targeting social need in areas such as the Shankill, but remind the questioner that he voted against changes to the common funding system and that it is important to show leadership. So I ask the Minister: how is it now important to show leadership, especially when it comes to academic selection, in areas such as the Shankill?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

As I said, if you support academic selection, you have to support all outcomes of academic selection. The evidence shows clearly that academic selection has a detrimental impact on young people from socially deprived areas. I do not know what the positive outcomes are, but people tell me that there are positive outcomes. If you support those, you also have to acknowledge that the negative outcomes from academic selection also exist. There is a large evidence base to show the detrimental impact that it has.

The Shankill was mentioned by the original questioner. In fairness, the community sector and community organisations in the Shankill have taken ownership of education in the area. I was at a report launch the other night in west Belfast where the community and schools have been working together. The very impressive results coming out of post-primary schools there are all down to cooperation, working in partnership, identifying each other's strengths and weaknesses and being prepared to work together. Leadership is vital in the school and classroom, as well as in the community and in the political forum, to ensuring the best outcomes for young people.

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

I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. What professional opportunities are there for our teachers to upskill in literacy and numeracy and be made aware of the good practice that is out there? My concern is that many of the good projects, for example, Achieving Belfast and Achieving Derry, are not disseminated well enough.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Numeracy and literacy are core skills in teaching and in our education system. I acknowledge the need for continuing professional development in our teaching workforce, but it should be across a wide range of areas. Core skills should be updated, but they should be there from the very start. Under the Delivering Social Change programme, we brought newly qualified teachers into schools as an additional resource, and they were used directly as a numeracy and literacy support or to allow a more experienced or qualified teacher to deal with numeracy and literacy. We learned lessons from that, and, through the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI), those experiences are being shared to ensure that best practice is delivered across schools.

As resources become more and more stringent, we will have to reach the point of using our main resource as the key lever to eradicate educational underachievement and numeracy and literacy problems, rather than seeking out schemes or additional funds. We will have to start using our core funding more strategically and effectively to ensure that we get a return on it.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Does the Minister agree that education, health, community and business sector partnerships are key to improving educational outcomes? Can he give to the EastSide learning partnerships and learning framework the same positive support as he has given to the Full Service community network in north and west Belfast?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

EastSide is another positive development not only in community infrastructure but in educational output. I have attended a number of events and have met the group. I am impressed by its work and involvement in education in the community. A lot of good work is going on out there. It is worth noting that, from 2007, the percentage of young people leaving school with five good GCSEs has risen by almost 10%, so the policies, the commitment and the work are beginning to pay off for our young people. The percentage of young people on free school meals leaving schools with five or more good GCSEs has risen by almost 8% in the same time frame. We have a lot of work to do there, but the graph is moving in the right direction, and there are many different aspects to why that is the case.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

3. Mr Irwin asked the Minister of Education for an update on plans for a new build for Markethill High School, Armagh. (AQO 9204/11-16)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

A new build for Markethill High School was considered for my June 2014 capital investment announcement. Unfortunately, the proposed project did not pass one of a number of gateway checks, on the basis that the school's enrolment was below the sustainable schools threshold. Should there be a further announcement for either the major capital or school enhancement programmes, the school will have the opportunity to reapply for consideration at that time.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his response. He said that the enrolment was not high enough. Markethill High School is at its absolute maximum in relation to the number of pupils that it accepts. Does the Minister accept that Markethill High School has consistently delivered some of the best results anywhere in Northern Ireland?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Markethill and the Armagh city area require an area planning solution to ensure that we know exactly the make-up of the school estate from this point forward. That will allow me as Minister, or my successors, to invest in the Armagh and Markethill area. At the moment, we do not have an area plan for the secondary/post-primary sector, and I encourage everyone involved to come to a conclusion on the discussions around that.

Yes, I do congratulate the school on its excellent exam results.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. What projects are in the major capital programme in the Newry and Armagh area?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for his question. There are several programmes of spend in the Newry and Armagh area. The following schools are benefiting from the school enhancement programme: St Patrick's Grammar School Armagh, which is on site; Our Lady's Grammar School, Newry; Rathore School, Newry; and Armstrong Primary School, Armagh — the tender has been awarded. Two of the major projects are on site; one is at feasibility stage, and one is at business case stage. Also benefiting are St Joseph's Convent Primary School, Newry; St Clare's Abbey Primary School; St Colman's Abbey Primary School, Newry; St Joseph and St James Primary School, Poyntzpass; and St Joseph's High School, Crossmaglen. There is an estimated value of £44 million of capital investment in the Newry and Armagh constituency, on site now or in the foreseeable future.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his earlier, albeit somewhat disappointing, answers. I declare an interest in that my wife is employed at Markethill High School. Does the Minister accept that his news to the Assembly today will be greeted with great disappointment, given that Markethill High School is a very well-regarded and high-achieving school in the mid-Armagh area? Can he look at the criteria again? The school estate at Markethill is no longer in a fit and proper condition to educate the pupils who are already there.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for his question. I understand that my statement today will come as a disappointment to Markethill High School, although not, I think, as a surprise, because they were aware of the situation.

There are many schools in our schools estate that require significant investment or a complete rebuild. The way that we have been moving forward over the last number of years is through the area-planning process to ensure that when we invest significant public funds in the schools estate we can be confident that a school is situated in the right area — I am not suggesting that Markethill High School is not, but I am giving a broad answer, rather than one specifically about Markethill or Armagh city — and that we know the numbers that the school will be catering for into the future. That has to be based on an area-planning solution.

As the Member, and other Members of the constituency, is aware, there has been an ongoing stop-start discussion on the future of education in that region. I encourage political representatives from all political parties to use their influence to ensure that those discussions come to a conclusion and that the needs of all the young people in that area are met. It will allow this Minister, and future Ministers, to invest in the area.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht an fhreagra a thug sé dúinn ar an cheist áirithe seo. Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his answer. He referred to area-based planning in relation to Markethill High School, but does the Minister agree that area-based planning in the south Armagh area has been completed and that there is good cooperation between St Paul's High School, Newtownhamilton High School and St Joseph's High School, Crossmaglen? Can he also give an indication of the progress on bringing forward a new build for St Joseph's, Crossmaglen?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chomhalta as a cheist. I thank the Member for his question. I have already announced a new build for St Joseph's High School in Crossmaglen. You pointed out why I could make such an announcement: area planning has progressed in the south Armagh area, and there has been engagement between the various schools. As we know what size of schools estate we need, we can invest in it. My announcement on St Joseph's stands. Preparatory work for the new build is moving forward.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

5. Mr McMullan asked the Minister of Education to outline the progress made to resolve an industrial action over levels of progression in schools. (AQO 9206/11-16)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Over the last number of weeks, I have met the NITC — the Teaching Council — representatives on three occasions. I am encouraged to report a shared acknowledgement that teacher judgement is the best means of determining and reporting on a child’s progress, and a growing acceptance that the application of standards through moderation is intended to assist teachers to use the levels of progression in the classroom with confidence. I have listened to the views and concerns of the NITC, and they have listened to mine. More importantly, I have demonstrated that I am prepared to act to address them.

With that in mind, and given our common ground, it is my view that there can now be no possible justification for the continued industrial action in that area. Therefore, on 22 October I wrote to the Teaching Council, which represents all the unions, to set out the significant steps I am prepared to take on the end of key stage assessment arrangements from 2015-16, recognising that the assessment arrangements must evolve as they embed. In return, I requested that the NITC agree to bring the current industrial action in relation assessment to an end, which will allow us to move forward together.

I am encouraged to note that the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) has now suspended its industrial action in relation to statutory assessment. I understand that the Irish National Teachers' Organisation (INTO) and the Ulster Teachers' Union (UTU) have written to schools that were successful in the first call for applications for the shared education signature project to advise that they can now comply with the assessment process. I encourage those teaching unions that are still on industrial action to give the matter their urgent attention.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for his answers. Will he outline which unions, if any, have responded to his proposals?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The unions that have responded in a positive manner are the NASUWT, the INTO and the UTU. The Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) has advised me that it will continue with its industrial action, and the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) was not involved in that specific industrial action.

We have made progress. If other unions follow the examples of these unions thus far, it will give us space to continue discussions. It will also allow the assessments to begin. As I have said repeatedly in my discussions with the unions, we need to allow the process to begin. The process will evolve over a period of time to ensure that we achieve the best education possible for our young people and have the correct way of recording and using data for that purpose. That is what we all want.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Given that, at the heart of it, there seems to be a lack of confidence in levels of progression as a means of assessment; when the Minister talks about an evolving situation, is one of the bits of evolution that has to occur an examination of alternative means of assessment as we move forward?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am not keen to examine alternative means of assessment when we have not used the current assessment processes that are in place. I have been able to deal with the vast majority of genuine concerns that have been raised by the unions about levels of progression.

As I said to Mr McMullan, for the process to evolve it has to begin. I welcome the fact that a number of unions are suspending their industrial action. We will let it begin, discussions between my Department and the unions will continue, and we will achieve an assessment process that meets the needs, first and foremost, of our young people, and of our education system, our teachers, our Department of Education and all other bodies.

I was in Wales and Scotland recently and had the opportunity to discuss various forms of assessment with the Welsh and Scottish Ministers. They vary. In Scotland, they use a test and may move to a singular test. Wales uses an assessment process as well. There are different examples as to how it can be achieved. I welcome the suspension of industrial action by some of the unions. To give confidence to the system, let us get the process moving forward and ensure that we end up with an assessment that we are all satisfied with.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for a response on the matter. I could not hear all the answer, with the speakers in this part of the Chamber, but I wonder could he —

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The rowdy corner.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

It is more to do with the sound system than my colleagues. Will the Minister clarify whether there is a change to what schools will have to do as part of the statutory process going forward?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Yes. I have had discussions with the unions and have listened to their concerns. Moderation was a concern.

I outlined to schools that moderation will now take place within the school and among a cluster of schools in that area to ensure that each school's marking regime is fair, adequate and understood by the schools around it. The level that the school uses for each element of work will actually be worked out, first, within the school and, then, among the schools surrounding it.

What is the data used for? There were concerns among the unions that the data would be used as a blunt tool to target schools as underachieving. I have reassured the schools that that will not be the case. I have asked for data to be returned to my Department in a way that will not allow me to identify individual schools but will allow me to identify trends across our education sector to be used to ensure that our policies are correct and are achieving the traction that we all want to achieve. Those are just two areas.

There are concerns about the workload around the portfolio. I have engaged with the unions around that. I believe that the measures we have put in place will ease the pressures on the teachers' workload as well.

There are many different views on what type of assessment you should use. Some would argue that you should use a simple test, and there are systems that use a test. In Scotland, the different authorities may use slightly different tests, and there may be a proposal to bring forward a single test, but the concerns raised there are my concerns around the test: you teach to the test. What I am trying to achieve is an assessment that is based on the professional judgement of the teacher on work from the curriculum that the child will do in the class.

Teachers were concerned that maybe they would score it right but the school down the road would not. I think that, if we bring schools together in clusters and they discuss and debate what a level 2, level 3 or level 4 looks like, there will be confidence among schools that it is being scored correctly. As I have constantly said and have said during this Question Time, we need to have the assessment in place for it to evolve into what we want it to achieve. Now that the unions have suspended their industrial action —

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I remind the Minister of the two-minute rule.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

OK.

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

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he agree with me — perhaps in simple English, using words of no more than two syllables — that the levels of progression were used as an accountability measure, which eroded any possible use they might have had as an assessment or learning tool?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

What is wrong with a Department of Education or Education Authority having an accountability mechanism? How do we ensure that our young people receive the educational opportunities they should receive? I make no apologies whatever for seeking accountability tools. I have sat in front of the unions and told them that I make no apologies for seeking accountability tools. It is how those accountability tools are used that is a cause of concern to the unions. The unions, in fairness to them, are not shying away from accountability either. It is about how and for what purpose accountability is used. They were concerned that levels of progression would be a blunt tool to identify schools as underachieving and, therefore, all the power and force of the Department of Education would fall down upon them. I have assured the unions that that is not the purpose of them. I have put changes in place that will ensure that that is not the purpose of them. The purpose of levels of progression is to ensure that our young people's education is up to the standard that it should be — measured by teachers.

Bronwyn McGahan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

7. Ms McGahan asked the Minister of Education to outline the progress made in establishing a careers advisory forum. (AQO 9208/11-16)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The inaugural meeting of the careers advisory forum took place on the 12 November 2015, and feedback from the day has been very positive. Minister Farry and I established the forum in response to a recommendation from the independent review of the careers system. The forum’s role is to advise both Departments on current and future careers provision and facilitate engagement between employers, educators and other key stakeholders at both a system level and a local level. Membership is made up of representatives from business and education and other stakeholders, such as parents. It is chaired by Judith Gillespie, and I am grateful to Judith for taking on that challenging and important task.

Bronwyn McGahan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his response. Can I ask him for a potential time frame for the implementation of the recommendations pertaining to DE from the report? Go raibh maith agat.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Employment and Learning Minister and I are working our way through the recommendations. I am due to meet the Employment and Learning Minister shortly for further clarification of the recommendations etc, so those discussions continue. I cannot put a time frame on it, but I assure you that we are working with the Employment and Learning Minister around that report.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Can the Minister reassure the House and the public that sufficient steps will be taken at the careers advisory forum to ensure that the suitability and appropriateness of positions in the public and private sectors will be borne in mind when schools look at the projects?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I want to reassure the Member of that. If he has any specific issues that have caused him concern, he is more than welcome to engage with me after Question Time. To date, however, I have had no reason to believe that anything other than complete professionalism is taking place at the forum, which will be professional in its work and delivery.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for bringing this forward as a recommendation from the Employment and Learning Committee's inquiry into careers. Has he considered our recommendation to make careers a statutory obligation and the potential of putting that in, maybe, in years 10, 12 and 13?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

As I have said previously, I am reviewing all the recommendations from the DEL careers strategy and will respond to them in due course.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

8. Mr Hazzard asked the Minister of Education to outline how his Department will benefit from the recent November monitoring round announcement. (AQO 9209/11-16)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Across the education sector, we continue to deal with a very challenging budget situation. The additional £15 million in-year allocation will be spent equally on school maintenance, special education and funding the drawdown of schools surpluses. School maintenance is an area of the budget that continues to be under pressure due to an ageing schools estate. The additional allocation will be used to address outstanding health and safety maintenance issues. Special education is also a growing cost pressure in the education sector. Therefore, additional funding will assist special education needs for pupils in both mainstream and special schools. In June 2011, the Executive agreed the schools surplus scheme, which allows schools to either draw down or increase their surplus. That is funded from a central pot controlled by the Executive. The £5 million allocation to fund schools surplus drawdowns enables schools that wish to reduce their surplus during 2015-16 to fund in-year expenditure. I am committed to protecting and, where possible, enhancing front-line services in education. I therefore welcome the additional £15 million, which will go some way to easing the financial pressures in education.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. He referred to the "central pot" of school surpluses. Will he detail how much is in that central pot?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Currently, £36·7 million in surpluses built up by schools over a number of years is held in that central pot. It can and should be drawn down to assist schools in delivering the educational provision that their young people require. It is quite a significant amount that has largely stayed in and around the same over the past number of years, even though we have gone through a very difficult budgetary period. I encourage schools to keep their surplus to a minimum and to use it to assist their young people's educational needs. Obviously, I do not want a run on the bank. I do not want a £36 million download at this stage. However, over the next years, surpluses will certainly require further and more detailed attention.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

9. Mr Campbell asked the Minister of Education to outline the submissions made by primary schools in East Londonderry for new school builds since 2012. (AQO 9210/11-16)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Since 2012, five primary schools have been submitted for consideration in major capital announcements: Ballykelly Primary School; Listress Primary School, which is part of the amalgamation of Mullabuoy Primary School and Craigbrack Primary School; Mill Strand Integrated School, Portrush; Roe Valley Integrated Primary School; and St Patrick’s Primary School, Portrush. Of those, two schools have been announced to be advanced in planning for a new build: Listress Primary School, announced in January 2013, and Roe Valley Integrated Primary School, announced in June 2014.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

It is early days since the working tax credit money amounting to some £240 million over four years landed on the Executive's desk, but has the Minister had an opportunity to turn his mind to any application for sums from that source to further some of those capital build programmes?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Member will be aware that the money set aside for tax credits is revenue. I seek capital, although I looked at the Chancellor's announcement and noted that capital was increasing for the Executive. I will put on a major lobby for an increase in the Department of Education's capital fund for the next year.

It took a dip this year.

I will also be seeking revenue for education from whatever source I can achieve it. The Executive will be discussing what we do with the £250 million or £260 million that was set aside for working tax credits. I will involve myself in those discussions, and I can assure you that I will always have an eye on getting more money for education.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

That ends the period for listed questions. We now move to topical questions.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

T1. Mr McCarthy asked the Minister of Education whether, since the introduction of the Autism Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, he is satisfied that his Department has lived up to the expectations of parents and guardians of children with autism that they can get the education most suited to their needs when they need it. (AQT 3201/11-16)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Yes, I am. We have policies in place that, by and large, deliver for the needs of our young people with autism and their family.

The Member will be aware that we are bringing the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Bill to the House for its Consideration Stage tomorrow, which I hope will lead to an improvement in the delivery of education services across the entire range of young people with special educational needs. The Member will also be aware that the £5 million that we received as part of the November monitoring round will go a long way to easing some of the pressures in that area.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his response and very much welcome the extra funding going into the sector. Importantly, is he aware that, when parents and guardians seek education for their youngsters, the provision is frequently not available, and it is certainly not available when it should be? Delays are, and have been, the big bugbear for parents of children with autism.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I do not necessarily agree that it is "frequently not available". We have many fine special educational needs schools that service the needs of our young people, including those with autism. We have many autism classes much autism provision in our mainstream schools as well.

Where there have been delays and where the system has let families and young people down, I accept that that is totally unacceptable. We have to continue to improve our delivery of services to the most vulnerable in our society. I hope that the SEND Bill goes a long way towards doing that.

I have ring-fenced special educational needs funding over the past number of Budgets, and it is my intention to do so again. As I said, I will always seek further funding for special educational needs.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

T2. Mr Humphrey asked the Minister of Education to look at varying the intake numbers for the Girls' Model, the Boys' Model and Hazelwood Integrated College, which were oversubscribed this year, with the Girls' Model oversubscribed by almost 30 young ladies, to allow more local young people to attend local secondary schools, given that the population in the primary schools in north Belfast and the greater Shankill is growing and that this will continue to be a problem. (AQT 3202/11-16)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

There are a number of ways of dealing with that, the first of which is through the numbers allocated to schools each year. We write out to each school every year, asking it whether it requires or is seeking a change to its entry numbers — an increase or a decrease — and, if so, the rationale for that. Secondly, it can be dealt with through a development proposal being brought forward to manage area-planning needs, but that is a matter for the Education Authority.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his response and welcome it. I make one point to him: it is very difficult for principals. As I said during listed questions, we have met the local principals to do planning when they do not have the places available to facilitate the young people who are being drawn from across Belfast because of the lack of state secondary schools.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am not placing the entire responsibility on the principals. The schools are run by boards of governors, and there is a role for the boards of governors in the programme. When I talk about area planning, I am talking about it from an Education Authority level. Those are controlled schools, for which the Education Authority is responsible. The schools should be planning for the future needs of young people in their area. If there is a shortfall in the numbers projected, I expect the Education Authority to bring forward plans to rectify that.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

T3. Mr Clarke asked the Minister of Education how his Department gathers data on school places, given that he will be familiar with the recent PAC report on school places and how they are calculated. (AQT 3203/11-16)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

As a former Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee, I know that it is more than my job is worth to comment on a report before the Department and the Department of Finance and Personnel have had a chance to formally respond.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

As a former Chairman, you may be aware that this report indicates that the figures are inflated and that it does not allow for modern teaching methods. The figure that your Department uses in relation to the number of empty places is actually a false figure. What is your Department going to do to rectify that and print an accurate figure for whatever the schools estate has?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I do not want to go into the specifics of the PAC report but, whatever figure you use, we have too many empty school places. However, we do not use the universal figure when we are judging the schools estate in any area. For instance, if a development proposal comes forward to me to close a school, we will have accurate, up-to-date figures for each of the schools in that locality. We will know exactly what empty or full places there are in those schools. If a proposal comes forward to me to open a school, I will know what the accurate up-to-date data is in each area. Whatever the universal figure may or may not be — we will respond to the PAC on that in due course — the way that we develop our schools estate is with up-to-date data and information. Therefore, I believe that we can accurately reflect the position in any area when making decisions around area planning.

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

T4. Mr Rogers asked the Minister of Education whether he shares the recently expressed concerns about the cost to the Education budget of PPP schemes and to state whether there has been any renegotiation of those contracts. (AQT 3204/11-16)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The original PPP schemes were actually the subject of a PAC report during my time there. Yes, lessons have been learned from those original pathfinder PPPs. I have not been involved — to the best of my knowledge, the Executive have not involved themselves — in any PPP schemes during this mandate. If we are to move into that territory, we will have to take best practice from elsewhere around these islands and perhaps across Europe to ensure that the public sector, rather than simply the private sector, is a beneficiary. We have not had an opportunity to renegotiate contracts. They are legal contracts. I could spend a significant amount of time hiring legal and other expertise to renegotiate something, or I can move forward in trying to deliver the services with the limited resources that I have.

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

I thank the Minister for his answer. Officials at a recent Education Committee meeting said that over 50% of their costs are utility costs. Will you outline what they mean by utility costs?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It depends on each contract for each school. I assume that they are referring to service level agreements with the schools around keeping the schools in pristine condition. I have been around a number of PPP projects that are several years old in very busy schools, and I have to say that they are pristine; they are like they were the day they were built. I have a major maintenance backlog. When I walk around a PPP project and see how well they are kept, I know that I am not going to have to spend any maintenance on those, so there is a cost offload in maintenance against utility costs etc. I am more than happy to supply the Member with a full breakdown of what that terminology covers.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

T5. Mr Campbell asked the Minister of Education to outline the work expected of the controlled sector support body. (AQT 3205/11-16)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It is set out in an Executive agreement that the controlled sector support body is there to support controlled schools in the delivery of education and to give them a coordinated voice and approach in areas of concern and opportunity.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Would the Minister, then, be content if the support body were to ensure, for the present and the future, that parity of funding in capital and revenue is uppermost in its mind and, hopefully, concentrate the mind of this Minister and future Ministers on that aspect as well?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The body's work programme in ensuring parity where I am concerned will be very short because my record speaks for itself. I have published criteria for new school builds. I have made announcements around new school builds based on those criteria. While many cases of legislation take place in education, I have never been challenged in the courts over any decision that I have made around a capital build. That speaks for itself; my processes are open and transparent and, while people might not always like the decisions, they realise that people are getting a fair deal.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

T6. Mr Lyons asked the Minister of Education, given that he knows that Islandmagee needs a new primary school and the fact that, in 2014, he said that a development proposal for the amalgamation of Kilcoan and Mullaghdubh primary schools had been approved in 2004 and remained in place, with responsibility for implementing the proposal to bring the schools together resting with NEELB, which has happened, albeit that Kilcoan and Mullaghdubh will be amalgamated from September 2016 but on different sites, to give an update on the funding for a new build for a new Islandmagee primary school. (AQT 3206/11-16)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am looking through my notes because I think that there is a question for oral answer on that matter that I did not get to. I am more than happy to give the Member a written update on the building programme. I announced it previously, but there was a change of mindset in the then education and library board, which meant that the programme was delayed. There have been many twists and turns in the road for those schools. Once I have definitive decisions in front of me, we can move on towards ensuring that the school receives a new build.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. This issue has been going on for the best part of a decade. Further to his answer, will he commit to meeting me, other elected representatives and members of the board of governors to discuss why the new build for Islandmagee should be a priority for his Department?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am happy to do so.

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

T7. Mrs D Kelly asked the Minister of Education, given that he will be aware of the considerable challenge of the amalgamation of St Michael’s, St Mary’s and St Paul’s in Lurgan, for an update on the two-site interim development bid that has been submitted in advance of a new school being built on the site of St Ronan’s. (AQT 3207/11-16)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am also aware of the huge opportunities that have arisen as a result of the amalgamation of those three schools. It is heart-warming to see young people in the Catholic sector in Lurgan attending one school in the one school uniform, which is a major step forward for education in the area. Any proposal that is brought forward to me on a two-site solution ahead of a full build, which I have announced — there will be a new build for that school — will be looked at against any other pressures at that time.

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

In the interim, will the Minister write to me formally to let me know when a decision may be reached or when he may consider the development proposal, which, I understand, is with the Department, as an interim measure before a new school is built on the site of St Ronan's, which, let us face it, was announced by your predecessor in 2010?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I think that you will find that I announced the new build.

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

No, actually —

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I think that you will find that it was me who announced the new build. The development proposal for the schools to amalgamate was also approved only two years ago. So an announcement has been made, and progress is being made towards a new build, which perhaps will be one of the biggest schools in our portfolio. It will provide education for future generations in the Lurgan area. I am more than happy to write to the Member to update her on the current position.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

T8. Mr Maskey asked the Minister of Education what lessons can be learned for other areas following the publication of the ERASMUS polycentric report on educational achievement in west Belfast. (AQT 3208/11-16)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Any community that is interested in raising educational outcomes for its young people should study that report and listen to the testimony of teachers, pupils and community activists in that area to see how their working together, breaking down the barriers of concern about sharing best practice between schools and so on, and ensuring that they are working with a community has been to the benefit of young people in west Belfast.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Minister for that. Will he continue to give leadership in working with all the other relevant educational authorities and agencies to try to make sure that we roll out such successful programmes in the future, as he has been doing for some time?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

One of my themes throughout my time as Minister has been to say that, despite having excellent teachers and school leaders, they cannot do this on their own. If we are to raise educational outcomes for young people, particularly in areas of social deprivation, there has to be community involvement. The old African saying that goes something along the lines of:

"It takes a village to raise a child"

is very apt in these circumstances.

The ERASMUS study showed that schools work together and self-evaluate. I think that one of the main findings was that schools were self-evaluating their own work and sharing their best practice with neighbouring schools, coming together through area learning communities at nursery, primary and post-primary level and ensuring that everyone felt comfortable and involved. Working with the community sector has ensured that the qualifications of young people coming out of west Belfast have been on the up every year over the last five or six years. When you look at all the socioeconomic indicators in west Belfast, they tell you that young people there are disadvantaged, and most likely to be disadvantaged in their educational outcomes. What has actually happened there is that the community and education sectors have refused to set the destinies for those young people and have set out a pathway and a work programme that have given them excellent opportunities in life.

Oral Answers to Questions — Employment and Learning

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I must inform the House that questions 3, 10 and 14 have been withdrawn.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

1. Mr Middleton asked the Minister for Employment and Learning how his Department will assist the Ulster University Magee campus to ensure courses are protected. (AQO 9217/11-16)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

While my Department provides funding and sets the strategic direction for the higher education sector, universities are autonomous and wholly responsible for decisions on course offerings and where the courses are delivered. The institutions are at liberty to deploy their funding across their various campuses, where applicable, and on the different courses that they offer. In deciding which courses to close or scale back, the Ulster University took a number of factors into consideration, including the priorities of my Department, such as protecting narrow STEM provision; student demand; attrition rates; student satisfaction; employment statistics; and research performance. The university has also consolidated teaching provision into its campuses to facilitate the necessary reduction of staff numbers without impacting on the quality of teaching, which remains paramount.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Later this week, I will meet the vice-chancellor Paddy Nixon to discuss these matters. Does the Minister agree that, whilst we all want to see the university at Magee expanded, it is vital that the courses that are on offer are focused on the needs and demands of the area, specifically computing and health and social care?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I wish the Member success with his meeting with the vice-chancellor. I am sure that it will be very productive. In respect of his supplementary question, the Member should take some degree of comfort that, while we are going through some very difficult times, the university has sought to consolidate particular types of courses at particular campuses rather than spreading them out. In that way, it is trying to stretch itself that little bit further to protect the range of courses that is on offer and also the number of places that can be facilitated. Indeed, it has consolidated engineering and computing into the Magee campus, which hopefully will reinforce its relevance in particular to the opportunities to expand the economy in the north-west.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for that update. Specifically, can he give an update on the current business case for the Magee expansion and indeed where he thinks the expansion issue will sit in the restructuring of Departments?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

First of all, with regard to the business case, we have asked for further clarification on a number of points. That request was made by my officials at the beginning of July. We have yet to receive the revised business case. I encourage those who are finalising it to get it to us as quickly as possible, given, not least, that decisions on budgets are looming. Ultimately, the issue of the expansion lies with higher education. As the Member will appreciate, higher education is set to be part of the new Department of the Economy from May 2016 onwards.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

The Minister referred to the relocation of courses to Magee. Can he say what is actually happening to psychology courses?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

My understanding is that psychology is being redirected to Coleraine. The process of consolidation at Magee is being reflected in similar decisions that are being taken with respect to the other campuses. As I have outlined already, a strategic approach is being taken that is about trying to maximise the ability to retain as many courses as possible and also to protect as many places as possible. That is a way of maximising the efficiency of the university as far as it can, operating across four different campuses.

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

2. Mr McGlone asked the Minister for Employment and Learning for an update on the Big Conversation. (AQO 9218/11-16)

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

4. Ms Ruane asked the Minister for Employment and Learning when he will announce the findings of the Big Conversation. (AQO 9220/11-16)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

With your permission, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I wish to group questions 2 and 4, and I request an additional minute for the answer.

I launched the Big Conversation on 15 September as an innovative and experimental approach to engaging with people on the sustainability and the future of our higher education system. It concluded on 23 October. The process was designed to be iterative, comprising two main stages themed on a week-by-week basis. The first stage, ‘Did you Know?’, ran for the first three weeks and focused on raising public awareness of the purpose and importance of our existing higher education system. This was followed by a second stage, ‘Have your Say’, which launched on 6 October and invited people to put forward their views on some of the most critical issues facing our higher education system.

During the first stage, people were invited to test their knowledge of our existing higher education system through online ‘Did you Know?’-style surveys. The second stage was more akin to a traditional consultation. Equipped with the knowledge gained in stage one, people were invited to have their say on a range of issues through a consultation questionnaire. Questions focused on the adequacy and sustainability of our existing higher education funding and delivery systems and whether there might be alternatives that could work better for Northern Ireland.

During the process, my officials and I sought to stimulate debate and engage with people in a wide range of ways. We had formal meetings with stakeholders, and we held workshops, focus groups and a Twitter question and answer session in the penultimate week to answer people’s questions directly. Various other stakeholders, including our universities and colleges, promoted the process through their own channels. In the final week, my officials organised a panel discussion to examine some of the different higher education funding and delivery systems maintained in other parts of the world. That event was very well attended and received, and we were fortunate to secure some excellent panellists. Now that the Big Conversation has concluded, building on the evidence presented, I am finalising a paper to present to my Executive colleagues, outlining the ways in which higher education could be sustained in the future.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. Thanks very much, Minister, for your response. In what way will secondary-school students, who will be most affected by this, have an input into this consultation process?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

The consultation has closed, and I have outlined to the Member the different ways in which people could make their views known. That included online opportunities as well as the opportunity to submit formal responses. I also stress to the Member that, to an extent, he is correct when he talks about secondary-school children being most affected by this, but there are many other stakeholders who will be affected by this situation, including businesses in Northern Ireland and wider society. Our future economic potential will also be affected. What is at stake in what is happening to higher education is extreme, and it is important that, over the coming weeks, the Executive can find a solution that will be sustainable in the long term.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he accept that proposals to increase tuition fees would have a negative impact on his Department's commitment to widening access to people from disadvantaged areas? We have just heard from the Minister of Education about the increase in the number of young people in west Belfast getting better qualifications. Does the Minister accept that his proposals to increase tuition fees could disadvantage pupils from deprived areas?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

First, let me be very clear: I have not proposed an increase in tuition fees. I have simply outlined the fact that our current system is unsustainable. My first priority is to ensure that we have a sustainable system for our future economy and society, and to give young people opportunities. Until we can find a solution on which there is political consensus, all options remain on the table. At this stage, I am not advocating an increase in tuition fees.

On a purely stand-alone basis, I concur with the Member when she says that a rise in tuition fees would have an impact on widening access and deter some from accessing higher education. However, it is only right and proper that we make clear that the cuts that the Executive imposed on my Department, which I, sadly, had to pass on to universities, have already had an impact on people's ability to access higher education. We have a situation in which we have fewer places on offer from this year, which means that some people will be forced to go to Great Britain or elsewhere in the world, often having to pay higher tuition fees than would be on offer in Northern Ireland. In some cases, people have had no opportunity to go to university at all and have lost out on a life-transforming opportunity. We are seeing very real costs already in this respect, and those from the more marginalised and vulnerable sections of our society will be impacted most by the loss of places. While we are hearing potential figures of cuts to Departments coming up, it is important to recognise that, if we see a similar situation arising for our universities for this forthcoming academic year, we will see a further reduction in places, which will have another detrimental impact on people's opportunities and our widening-access targets.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Does the Minister intend to make his recommendations on the funding of further and higher education this side of the election, or was the Big Conversation a big delaying tactic to avoid potentially unpopular decisions?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Hear, hear.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I hear a former Minister who did exactly that in parking a decision to the far side of an election saying "hear, hear". Clearly, we know where the form lies in that regard. I think that my Department was chosen last because the political hot potato of tuition fees was left unresolved until after the Assembly election. What happens is very much in the hands of the Executive and the Assembly, but let me be very clear that I am determined to get this issue resolved. We cannot afford to park this issue; our universities are bleeding already. We have issues that, if unresolved, will undermine our credibility as an investment location. We are about to have a question on a lower level of corporation tax. Already, our investment narrative is in jeopardy because we do not have a clear outcome on the sustainability of our higher education system.

I am doing sterling work to resolve these issues. We will have a paper before the Executive within weeks, so there is an opportunity for all parties to take a responsible decision on the best way forward. There are clear choices that we can make. Tuition fees remain an option open to the Executive, but they also have the option of doing something more in line with what happens in Scotland, where more money is redirected from the block grant into supporting universities, so that is another option that is available. Of course, this is happening in the context where money is being taken out of our budgets to have a more generous welfare system. That may or not be the right thing for us to do, but that is what is about to happen. We have a host of other populist decisions being taken on other public services and other types of commitments. It is in that context that we have to see what will be doable. It is up to the Executive over the coming weeks to try to take a decision on what will happen in the here and now.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

The Minister mentioned the Executive's decision to lower corporation tax in 2018. Given that decision, what scale of investment is required now for our young people in anticipation of more inward investment coming online?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for her question. To put this in context, it may be useful to see three or four different elements in this. First, we have the cut to higher education that was passed on for the 2015-16 financial year, amounting to £16·1 million. We have a pre-existing structural deficit in our university funding that amounts to about £39 million. That is based on a comparison between the money that we are investing per student in Northern Ireland relative to the rest of the UK. Thirdly, we have to look to what potential expansion we need to see for higher education to meet the needs of investing companies in response to lower corporation tax.

As we have already heard, there are ambitions to expand the Ulster University at Magee. While we are still awaiting the business case, it is likely that we will be talking about a figure in the region of £30 million per annum if we are to see the expansion in line with the One Plan targets. Very quickly you can see that we are talking about a figure in excess of £80 million a year being required to have a sustainable higher education system in Northern Ireland that meets the needs of our economy, both today and, more importantly, where we hope to be tomorrow.

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

5. Mr Dallat asked the Minister for Employment and Learning for an update on the redundancy process at the Ulster University. (AQO 9221/11-16)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

While my Department provides funding and sets the strategic direction for the higher education sector, universities are autonomous and responsible for their own staffing levels. However, I have had ongoing discussions with the Ulster University in relation to the possible implications of the budget reductions and have been briefed on the redundancy process by the vice chancellor on a regular basis.

The university has already indicated the scale of the job losses over the current academic year and over future years. The size of the cuts is a clear indication of the severity of the budget reductions faced by my Department, the university and the higher education sector.

Ulster University has reported to my officials that the deadline for expressions of interest in the voluntary severance scheme closed on 30 October, and they are now liaising with the deans of the affected faculties before beginning the process of staff engagement.

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

Does it not break the Minister's heart that he has been responsible for reducing funding to the universities at a time when the whole world is telling us that the only way that we can create jobs for people who are travelling to the four corners of the world to find work, because the work is not at home, and the very thing that would be the driver to create the jobs has been starved of the oxygen of life in Coleraine and Derry in particular?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Let me be very clear: the decisions regarding my departmental budget were taken at Executive level, and I was deeply concerned about a whole range of issues around the budget.

I ask the Member to reflect on his party's approach to how we are addressing our Budget issues, because his party, like others, is very clear that it is not prepared to consider any additional revenue raising for Northern Ireland. Parties are very clear that they are not prepared to consider tackling the cost of a divided society; we could not even begin to address divisions in our teacher training system earlier this year.

We are not adopting a strategic approach to Budget setting. Parties are making more and more demands about what they want to spend money on. We are seeing a situation where money is going to be taken out of our block grant for welfare. We are seeing people making commitments ahead of even a full assessment of all the different needs; that we must protect health at all costs, rather than engaging in any health programme. Then people wonder why we have a situation where we are having cuts to our skills budgets and why we are seeing cuts being passed on to universities.

If people are genuinely concerned about this issue, it is important that they have a fundamental reassessment of how they are resourcing all that we need to do to fund our public services, including our universities, as well as how we fund the transformation of our economy. I encourage the Member and those in all parties to think very seriously about these issues over the coming weeks.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

6. Mr Anderson asked the Minister for Employment and Learning to outline how he will ensure Northern Ireland has a well-skilled workforce capable of attracting inward investment when the rate of corporation tax is reduced in 2018. (AQO 9222/11-16)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

It is essential that we are well placed to derive the full benefits of a 12·5% corporation tax rate, which could significantly increase the number of jobs locally that would otherwise be produced. However, a lower rate will not transform the economy in isolation of investment in, and a coherent focus around, the key economic drivers of skills and employability as the bedrock of economic success. It is crucial that we maintain and increase our investment in skills if we are to derive the benefits of a lower rate.

Research commissioned by my Department highlights, in particular, the importance of strong skills in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), management and leadership, literacy, numeracy and employability skills and the importance of acting quickly to meet the skills and needs of employers in a lower corporation tax environment.

These are issues that my Department is already working to address, and they are central to the overarching skills strategy. However, although the Department is already on the right path, there will be a need for further investment to address the quantum of skills required. My Department has developed a draft action plan to direct our skills interventions in preparation for, and in response to, a lower rate. This covers existing policies and programmes such as the following: investment in STEM skills; the implementation of the new apprenticeship strategy and, in particular, the supply of skills at level 3 and above; developing new pathways, such as higher level apprenticeships or working in partnership with Invest NI to promote foreign direct investment; the further development of careers provision and the work to upskill the existing workforce. Together with information from the recently published skills barometer, this will provide a strong basis to articulate and address future skill needs and help to ensure that we realise the potential for a lower rate. However, in order to ensure that we maximise this economic opportunity, it is essential that an appropriate level of investment in skills is restored, that the structural deficit of underfunding in higher education is addressed and that we invest in additional measures to ensure we meet the forecast skills demand.

The financial analysis undertaken indicates that the total additional cost may be in the region of an average of £111 million per annum over the next 15 years or a total of £1·67 billion through to 2030.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for that response. How do you plan to help existing businesses to prepare for the corporation tax reduction in 2018, especially in areas such as staff training, and I know that you have already mentioned apprenticeships? Can you give an indication of how your Department will work with DETI in preparation for 2018?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

On the latter point, we are due to have some discussions tomorrow as part of the Executive's subcommittee on the economy. That will, hopefully, begin to crystallise some of these discussions, and I know that discussions are happening at official level already in that regard. It will be a case of upscaling some of the existing interventions, for example, what we are doing around the apprenticeship strategy, and we have spoken at length about the importance of the funding of universities.

Another area that is worth highlighting is the importance of management and leadership skills. As we bring more and more high-value investments into Northern Ireland, a greater premium will be placed on management and leadership. Sadly, we have had some severe cutbacks to existing provision over the past couple of years. That will need to be reversed. We are also conducting a review of management and leadership at present. Hopefully, that will be concluded before the end of this mandate.

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

Minister, will you concede that, particularly at the beginning of the lower rate of corporation tax in 2018, there might be a fall in tax intake? Do you believe that that would have a detrimental effect on the funds available for your employability schemes and training schemes at a time when you need greater funds for those?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

It is almost certain that there will be a fall in the resources available to the Executive. Anyone who has looked at the figures on this will know that we will be looking at a figure that will progressively rise to one in the region of perhaps £250 million to £300 million per annum. Over time, more and more revenue will be generated in Northern Ireland as we see a much greater level of economic activity being sparked by lower corporation tax. We have a dilemma in that it is very clear that we have to invest more in what we are doing around skills if a lower corporation tax rate is to be successful. If we do not invest in skills, that simply will not be the case. That same logic applies to further investments in infrastructure and some reforms to the planning system, but the real dilemma that the Executive will have is that the increase in funding needs to happen now. That will happen at a time when we are seeing cuts to the block grant and money being taken out of our block grant for additional flexibilities around welfare, and we also have to make up the deficit from lost revenue from a lower level of corporation tax.