Northern Ireland Assembly, 8 December 2015

387 contributions from 70 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Before we proceed to today's business, I have an announcement to make. I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Mr Pat Ramsey giving me notice of his intention to resign as a Member for the Foyle constituency with effect from 31 December 2015. I have notified the Chief Electoral Officer in accordance with section 35 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I am satisfied that the requirements of Standing Orders have been met.

I also want to say a brief word, having worked with Pat for many years as a Derry city councillor and then as an Assembly Member. I also worked with him on the Assembly Commission when I was appointed Speaker. I just want to express my appreciation for the service that you have provided to this Assembly. Thank you very much, and I wish you all the very, very best of luck for the future.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

The first item of business is the consideration of business not concluded on Monday 7 December. You will be glad to hear that we concluded all the business on yesterday's Order Paper, so we will move on.

Ministerial Statements

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Before I commence my statement, I, too, wish Pat and Chris all the very best. Pat is a great public servant and is liked by everybody across parties, which is sometimes rare for this place, and I wish him, Chris and the girls all the very best.

Mr Speaker, with your permission and in compliance with section 52 of the NI Act 1998, I wish to make a statement regarding the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) inland waterways meeting, which was held in the Tyrone Guthrie Centre, Annaghmakerrig, County Monaghan, on 6 November 2015.

The Executive were represented by me as Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure and by junior Minister Emma Pengelly from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. The Irish Government were represented by lead Minister McHugh TD, Minister of State with special responsibility for Gaeltacht Affairs, and Heather Humphreys TD, Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. This statement has been agreed with junior Minister Pengelly, and I am making it on behalf of us both.

The meeting was chaired by Minister Humphreys TD and dealt with issues relating to inland waterways and its constituent agency, Waterways Ireland. The following topics were discussed and decisions taken where appropriate.

The Council received a progress report from Dawn Livingstone, chief executive of Waterways Ireland, on the activities of Waterways Ireland, including the following: management and maintenance of waterways continued, with over 95% of waterways remaining open for navigation in the period from April to October; capital expenditure focused on infrastructure repairs, with embankment strengthening and wall and bridge repairs; development work to refurbish waterside facilities and to extend towpath development is being enabled through third-party funding of €1,020,000; the dredging of the River Finn phase of the restoration of the Ulster canal from Upper Lough Erne to Castle Saunderson has been completed; Waterways Ireland is working with local authorities to explore options for the development of a greenway along the route of the Ulster canal; and 112 events were offered sponsorship support.

The UK winner of a 2015 Living Waterways Award was Row the Erne, a community-based organisation that is facilitated and supported at Waterways Ireland's headquarters. Ministers noted the update on Waterways Ireland's work to maximise the benefit of EU funding opportunities. The Council approved the determination made by Waterways Ireland regarding legacy scale linkages for Northern-based staff. The Council consented to a number of property disposals. The Council approved the appointment Ms Georgina McIntyre to the post of chief executive of the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB), on the basis of a seven-year, fixed-term contract, subject to the final agreement of the contract of employment. The Council agreed to meet again in inland waterways sectoral format in spring 2016.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for the report on the meeting. In length, at least, it is a modest report. Given the reference to the use of Waterways Ireland's headquarters by Row the Erne, a community-based organisation that was faciltated and supported there, and that there have been comments regarding the scale of the headquarters in Enniskillen, whether it is larger than actually needed and whether some of it could be sublet or used by others, has there been any progress on that, and is this an example of that sort of thinking?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Chair for his question. I agree that concerns have been raised about the size of the Waterways Ireland headquarters building in Enniskillen. Perhaps, if there is excess office space that people could make use of, that should be explored. I think that this is an example of where that has happened. I am not aware of any other requests for space, but I will try to find out whether there have been requests and if they have been facilitated; or, if there is still additional space, what plans there are to have that space filled in future.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. Can the Minister outline the main priorities for Waterways Ireland in 2016?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I think that the Member will join me in ensuring that we continue to recognise the achievements of Waterways Ireland in keeping navigation open. It is now at 95% and over. I think that its priority is to ensure that navigation is kept open and that another priority is the restoration of the Ulster canal. As the Member will have had a chance to see in the statement, Waterways Ireland is actively exploring other opportunities for additional funding through European routes and is looking at partnerships with other nations and countries, particularly on canals and waterways, to ensure that it not only gets additional funding but helps the sustainability of the waterways currently open.

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

I thank the Minister for her statement. Rightly so, Waterways Ireland has concentrated in its progress report on capital expenditure. It focused on infrastructure repairs, embankment strengthening and bridge repairs. Can the Minister tell the House whether any of those plans have been thwarted because of the extreme weather conditions that we have seen over the last week, and with more to come?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for her comments and her acknowledgement of the work of Waterways Ireland in keeping the navigation system and waterways open. I am not aware of any adverse impact as a result of the weather conditions. However, as we get the reports, even those from yesterday and today, I am keeping a daily watch on them. After today, I will ask for an update. I know that Waterways Ireland has a very good and effective working relationship with county and district councils. It takes a partnership approach to all government agencies, irrespective of the jurisdiction in which they are based. It has certainly done that in the past, and I have no indication that it will not happen if needed this week or in future. It will be willing to do whatever it can.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Two points caught my eye. The first concerns a substantial sum of money from third-party funding for towpath development. Can she tell us where that is likely to take place? The second concerns the Ulster canal. We have been told that Waterways Ireland is exploring options with local authorities for extending a greenway along the canal. That would be helpful. Can she give us a bit more detail on that, please?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I know that blueway developments are very successful, and some funds have been received from some Departments for them. In Enniskillen, our colleague Michelle O'Neill was involved in exploring options for blueways and, indeed, greenways.

On the Ulster canal restoration, as the Member may be aware, dredging has taken place on the River Finn. Waterways Ireland is looking at how it can extend that from Castle Saunderson to further afield. Through the work of the inter-agency group, and from meetings with local representatives that Minister Humphreys and I have had recently, it was very clear that there is a good energy. A can-do approach is being taken to try to secure additional funds — known as third-party funds — to look at opportunities to open up not only the canal but the walkways around our waterways. That is a really good development, and we are all keen for it to continue.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I have complained before about the brevity of the Minister's statements on previous meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council. I think that this is the worst that I have ever seen. The statement was very, very brief. It would be more helpful if we got more details so that we could ask you more questions. I do not understand why there is a reluctance to provide more details in statements. I want to ask questions. On EU funding opportunities, you could have told us something more about what opportunities and what work have been generated through maximising funding. Then —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I am waiting for a question.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

What does "legacy scale linkages" mean? Can the Minister elaborate on that, please?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member has complained in the past. I am not aware of her approaching either Waterways Ireland or Foras na Gaeilge for additional information, or even, for that matter, coming to me in between statements on one sectoral format meeting and another. Notwithstanding that, the statement was agreed by both Departments and reflects the joint communiqué. As for the linkages, there are differences in pensions and travel costs between members of Waterways Ireland staff, depending on the jurisdiction. I am sure that the Member will agree with me that it is important to ensure that all pensions and travel costs, as well as any other employment-related matters, are synergised across the island.

If the Member wants any additional information, I am open to receiving questions and answering them as best I can, but she needs to be proactive as well. If she is so discontented or unhappy with the level of detail provided, there is nothing stopping her from asking questions.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

I think that the difficulty with a short statement is finding something to ask on the issue. One thing that jumps out, Minister, is the European funding opportunities. Will you work with the Agriculture Department, for instance, on the rural development programme to potentially try to provide mix-and-match schemes?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I know that the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and Simon Coveney in the Irish Government have been working with Waterways Ireland to explore opportunities. Indeed, many bodies are trying to do that. There has been a great collaborative approach between Enniskillen and Monaghan and Cavan councils. That was evident in planning, first with the environmental impact assessments, and then with the planning regulations that were achieved. That partnership and relationship have continued. They will be pursued, and I will do whatever I can. Indeed, Waterways Ireland will do whatever it can to try to maximise opportunities to ensure not only that there is additional funding but that opportunities are not lost, particularly along the waterways.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagraí agus cuirim fáilte roimh an ráiteas s’aici anseo ar maidin. I thank the Minister for her statement this morning, which I welcome. Which stakeholders are represented on the inter-agency group that has been set up to examine all options for the Ulster canal? Does it include elected representatives?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for her question. At this stage, the group does not include elected representatives. When Minister Humphreys and I met stakeholders after the NSMC meeting, that issue was raised. In fact, I met some representatives before the meeting and raised it in advance with Minister Humphreys. While the county councils are involved in the inter-agency group, and while that is appreciated and accepted, it was felt that elected representatives need to be involved because they are the real voice of the councils in trying to ensure that the direction that the councils are going in is appropriate to the needs of the people they represent. It would also mean that there would be better involvement and participation and, sometimes, a better joined-up approach. It is anticipated that, in the not-too-distant future, elected representatives will be involved in the inter-agency group.

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

In the lead-up to Christmas, I am in a very buoyant mood, and I readily acknowledge that Waterways Ireland has done a great deal to transform the River Bann from a large drainage system into what could be the Riviera of the North. Will the Minister assure the Assembly that everything possible is being done to encourage private investment that is capable, in the long term, of creating many sustainable jobs in leisure, hospitality and tourism?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. I know that Waterways Ireland has been extremely proactive and has met tourism sectors right across the island. As I mentioned earlier, it is working with local government and Departments to try to ensure that there is a better joined-up approach, particularly to events and sponsored events. You will see from the statement that it was successful in securing sponsorship for at least 112 events. It is also looking at using our waterways and canals to add to the tourist product. I know that it is has spoken to, for example, the Heritage Lottery Fund and some private trusts about the possibilities. Some of that work was particularly evident in the restoration of the Ulster canal, where an inter-agency approach was taken. However, it is not resting there; it is looking for opportunities right across. I think that it has been very proactive and I am content that the same energy and focus will continue in the future.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Why have the 2014 annual accounts and reports disappeared off the radar? When the Minister made a statement six months ago, she advised of the advanced state of preparedness of those accounts. Yet, in this statement, there is not a single mention of them. So, where have they gone? As for the 2016 business plan, has that yet been approved?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The business plan has been approved. The Member asks the same question after each statement on a sectoral meeting, so he should know that the accounts have to go to both Finance Departments and both Comptrollers and Auditors General before being read into the record of each jurisdiction, the Assembly and the Oireachtas. At that stage, the accounts for Waterways Ireland are in preparation, and, while there is a delay, it is much better than it was in previous years.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Mr Speaker, with your permission, and in compliance with section 52 of the NI Act 1998, I wish to make a statement regarding the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) Language Body meeting that was held in the Tyrone Guthrie Centre in Annaghmakerrig, County Monaghan on 6 November 2015.

The Executive were represented by me as Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure and by junior Minister Emma Pengelly from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. The Irish Government were represented by lead Minister McHugh TD, Minister of State with special responsibility for Gaeltacht Affairs; and Heather Humphreys TD, Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. The statement has been agreed with junior Minister Pengelly, and I make it on behalf of us both. The meeting was chaired by Minister McHugh TD, and the following topics were discussed and decisions taken, where appropriate.

Ministers noted progress reports from the chairpersons and chief executive officers of Foras na Gaeilge and the Ulster-Scots Agency, which included the following achievements relating to the period from June 2015 to October 2015. The app for the new English-Irish dictionary was launched at Oireachtas na Gaeilge, and the Foclóir Beag was added to the online dictionary and language library. The Clár Leabhar Gaeilge campaign, under the auspices of the marketing support scheme for the Irish language publishing sector, is progressing well, with branded stalls in place in 15 shops. The Irish language scheme for primary schools is being implemented, and new digital facilities are available from junior infant level to second class. Funding was provided for youth projects, including 92 summer camps to cater for 3,800 children, which is an increase of 200 from 2014, with 74 groups organising youth activities during the year in addition to the 428 Gaeltacht scholarships for young people here.

The promotion of Ulster Scots in education included the award of flagship status to six schools; the enrolment of 12 schools on the flagship starter programme; the delivery of five after-school clubs and 10 workshops; and two further east-west twinning projects between primary schools. Two key events were organised, comprising a conference in Trinity College Dublin to mark the 700th anniversary of the arrival of the Bruces in Ireland, with an attendance of 300; and an Ulster-Scots heritage day in Raphoe that had an attendance of 450. Support was provided to 21 summer schools, 12 community festivals and 12 community showcase events. Public awareness of Ulster Scots was increased through 19 group visits to the Discover Ulster Scots Centre, the publication of two editions of the Ulster-Scots newspaper and the establishment of a further three blue plaques around Ulster, celebrating pivotal figures from Ulster-Scots history.

Ministers also noted progress on collaboration between Foras na Gaeilge and the Ulster-Scots Agency, including two joint events as part of a community relations and cultural awareness week, comprising a lecture on Irish and Ulster-Scots elements in place names in Northern Ireland and a panel discussion on language traditions in Belfast; engagement in year 2 of a programme to raise awareness of Irish language and linguistic heritage and Ulster-Scots culture, heritage and language in post-primary schools; and the ongoing evaluation of the possibilities of participation in the United Youth programme under OFMDFM's strategy Together: Building a United Community, which seeks to provide an outlet for 10,000 young people who are not in training, education or employment.

The Council noted that the field audits of the 2014 accounts have been completed, and, following work by the Comptrollers and Auditors General to finalise the accounts of each agency, it is envisaged that the consolidated language body annual report and accounts for 2014 will be laid by spring 2016. Ministers noted that the agencies of the language body continue to engage in the identification of possible opportunities to maximise the benefits of EU funding.

Ministers also noted that the Ulster-Scots Agency is continuing to explore opportunities under the INTERREG transnational programmes — the northern periphery and Arctic programme, and the Atlantic area programme, including the organisation of a workshop for the latter. The agency has applied to join the European route of industrial heritage network, which has 200 members in 43 countries, and is monitoring progress with the development of the LEADER/rural development programme whereby there may be opportunities to promote Ulster-Scots heritage.

Ministers noted developments arising from Foras na Gaeilge's success in securing EU funding for the Other Words literary project under the Creative Europe programme, and that two working groups — one internal and one with the six lead organisations — continue to assess other opportunities, including Slí Cholmcille — the Colmcille heritage trail. Advanced discussions have been held between Foras na Gaeilge, Argyll and Bute Council and Derry City and Strabane District Council with the aim of submitting a preliminary application under the Atlantic area programme. Work is ongoing to identify other eligible partners outside Ireland and the UK.

Larger partnership projects are being explored by the lead organisations EU funding working group. One of those organisations, Conradh na Gaeilge, has submitted an application under the recent round of the ERASMUS+ programme under key action 3 for youth structured dialogue. A larger project focusing on Families and Schools Together (FAST) for Gaeltacht and Irish-medium schools is being investigated.

The Council noted the key features of a revised scéim phobail Gaeilge/Irish language community scheme, which includes transition from a three- to a four-year scheme, the consolidation of progress to date and the facilitation of new communities to avail themselves of the scheme by increasing the number of possible grantees from the current 19 groups to a maximum of 26, which is an increase of 37% The Council noted a maximum grant level of €37,000 in year 1, rising to €40,000 in year 4, including 80% of the employment costs for development officers, and it noted a new focus on sustainable development in the communities, which will empower groups to retain ownership and stewardship in their target areas and ensure that permanent outcomes result from funding.

The Council noted that Glór na nGael, as the lead organisation in community and economic development through its network of development officers, will have a role in fostering, sharing and encouraging good practice in funded projects and will provide a mentoring, support and advice service to organisations whose applications do not meet the required standard for a grant offer. Ministers approved the revised scéim phobail Gaeilge/Irish language community scheme for implementation from 1 July 2016.

Ministers received a presentation from the CEO of the Ulster-Scots Agency outlining the agency's cross-border activities, consistent with its legislative remit for the promotion of greater awareness and use of Ullans and Ulster-Scots cultural issues. They noted the wide range of key activities that have been expanded on in both jurisdictions, including music and dance tuition; the Ulster-Scots flagship scheme; North/South school twinnings; a post-primary curriculum pilot project; annual community picnics; heritage research and the development of heritage trails; continuing support for Monreagh Heritage Centre; blue plaques; touring exhibitions; the organisation of an Ulster-Scots heritage day; and a conference on the Irish-Scottish world in the Middle Ages.

The Council agreed that its next language body meeting will take place in the spring of 2016.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Historically, if we go back to the early days of these two organisations, there were difficulties with annual reports and accounts. Are we getting much closer to the point at which they are entirely up to date and that those difficulties have been addressed?

The Minister's statement mentioned the Irish language community scheme. She referred to:

"a new focus on sustainable development in the communities, which will empower groups to retain ownership and stewardship in their target areas".

Will the Minister explain what that means in practical terms?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Chair for his questions. The current position regarding outstanding annual reports and accounts is moving on from where it was in the past. As the Chair knows, even in his previous role, there was a significant backlog of accounts which was of neither of our makings — it preceded us — but we are certainly heading in the right direction. The 2013 accounts were laid in the Assembly and in both Houses of the Oireachtas in June of this year, and we are proceeding with the 2014 accounts for both the Ulster-Scots Agency and Foras na Gaeilge.

In relation to Scéim Phobail Gaeilge, it is felt that smaller groups do more of the coalface community development. They should look at securing their future for the next four years, and try to develop and help groups that are not only practising and participating in the Irish language, but those who are learning the language and giving support to parents and grandparents in the wider community, in after-school groups and provision for young people and teenagers. It goes right across the whole of the North. If there is any work to be picked out as an example of the successes of Foras na Gaeilge, it is Scéim Phobail Gaeilge. It is, in my opinion, one of the best examples of its work.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an dara ráiteas seo aici anseo ar maidin. I am delighted that the Minister has alluded to European funding in both statements. How can Foras na Gaeilge and the Ulster-Scots Agency access it, and what discussions has she had with both bodies?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Chief executives and chairs of both organisations gave a report at the last sectoral meeting in November. It is true that Foras na Gaeilge has been able to proceed in a much more speedy way because there are natural linkages. I know that it is working with Macedonians, Swedish, Basques and Slovenians, particularly around minority languages in their written forms. There was almost a natural place for Foras na Gaeilge to apply for European funding.

In fairness to the Ulster-Scots Agency, it is trying to explore opportunities as well and it is looking at and discussing transnational and interregional programmes. The agency is not there yet. It needs to make a decision as to which programme it should apply to. Applying to Europe is very intensive, both in terms of human resources and finances. It needs to put that recommendation to its board and then pass it on to us before making a decision. It is certainly doing a lot of the preliminary work which will help it make a decision on which fund to apply for. It is actively considering all those opportunities as we speak.

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

I thank the Minister for her statement. Under the "Joint Projects between both Agencies", Foras na Gaeilge and the Ulster-Scots Agency, the statement says that there is:

"Ongoing evaluation of the possibilities of participation in the United Youth Programme under OFMDFM’s Strategy “Together Building a United Community”".

Will the Minister outline to the House what programme she envisages being delivered to the 10,000 children who are not in education, employment or training?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The emergence of the Executive's Together: Building a United Community strategy has, I believe, presented many Ministers and Departments with additional opportunities to try to provide a better all-round approach to service delivery. Foras na Gaeilge and the Ulster-Scots Agency have identified possible opportunities, and they have done that through working jointly. The Member has already cited the joint working referred to in the statement, using both the Irish language and Ulster-Scots culture and heritage, particularly around place names. The feedback, particularly from teenagers and young adults, is that that is something that has been particularly useful. It is trying to get those young people, who are not in training, education or employment, engaged in programmes that may be a gateway or provide opportunities for them to get involved in other schemes or other service provision.

I think that both Foras na Gaeilge and the Ulster-Scots Agency should be commended for seeing these opportunities and trying to exploit them, particularly for a group of young people which, by and large, has been very hard to reach.

There is an opportunity here to do it and to do it in a cross-community way.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her report. There are indications in your report that certain expense headings will be extended into the next Budget year. I am just wondering this: how can you do that, bearing in mind that we have not started the Budget process? How, indeed, will that dovetail into a Budget process?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

All the Departments and their ALBs and, in the context of this discussion, their constituent North/South bodies will have received their indicative budgets. Going into what will be primarily a new mandate for both Governments, they have begun and will continue with discussions on what a new mandate and new Ministers in both jurisdictions will perhaps have. They have a flat budget, which is an indicative budget at this stage. Anything else will be on top of that. I know that, in relation to Foras na Gaeilge and the Ulster-Scots Agency, there have been concerns raised about the need for additional funding, particularly if they want to explore some of the opportunities that we have just spoken about, which may mean additional support. Some of that may come from T:BUC, but some needs to come from central funds. While they have a budget at the minute, which is an estimated budget, they are looking at increasing that for the new mandates in both jurisdictions.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for her statement. I just want to go back to the question on participation by the two agencies in the United Youth programme. Is the Minister aware that DEL is piloting the programme but that there is money allowed only for this year and none designated for next year? I wonder whether the Minister can comment on that.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Someone's phone is interfering with the microphone system. It is not you, Minister; you are not guilty. I ask Members to check their phones, please. Minister, sorry about that.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I assure you, a Cheann Comhairle, that my phone is behaving itself.

Perhaps the Member would like to ask her party colleague what he is trying to do to work through the T:BUC programme, because I know that other Ministers and I have already begun the process. Budgets are indicative from one year to another, so we have had our budget for the programmes until the end of this mandate. I know, through the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, that it is looking for that programme to be continued. As I said, I assume, and I have no evidence to say otherwise, that the Minister for Employment and Learning, along with other Executive colleagues, is already working on plans for future delivery.

Foras na Gaeilge and the Ulster-Scots Agency have identified opportunities through T:BUC. They have already got a proven track record and great experience through their joint approach to using place names as a conduit to further discussion, and they have done it in a cross-community way. I believe that the Member and other Members have given credit to them in the past. If we can continue that into the future, I think that it will go a long way to help to meet the aspirations of the T:BUC programme.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for her answers so far. I encourage everyone in the House to visit the new Discover Ulster-Scots Centre in Belfast. It is an excellent experience, and congratulations to those who established it. A disparity exists between Ulster Scots and the Irish language — a disparity in funding for the agency and Foras na Gaeilge of 8:1, and the Minister's pet project Líofa has made a £1·1 million investment in the Irish language. What is significant in the statement is what is not in it. Where is the work that is supposed to be going on for the equivalent of a Líofa for Ulster Scots? Where is the parity and equality that was promised for Ulster Scots?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I resent the accusation that I have pet projects, and it is regrettable that the Member continues to use and abuse the Irish language in the Chamber. As he knows, the Líofa programme is not part of the NSMC statement. Maybe he just did not bother reading it before he came in; that would not surprise me.

I have asked the ministerial advisory group on Ulster Scots for a similar type of programme and believe that one will come forward in the new year. I ask the Member to use his influence, particularly with the agency over the next period of months, to try to support and help it with a better delivery of product for the Ulster-Scots culture and heritage. I do not believe that it would want to be part of any commentary that he has made about pet projects. That is not where it is coming from, and he really needs to take a leaf from its book.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

No answer.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Double up on the dose.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Order.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas. I thank the Minister for her statement. Mar is eol don Aire, tá buarthaí móra ann maidir le cur chuige Fhoras na Gaeilge ar an Scéim Phobail Gaeilge (SPG) i gcomparáid leis an togra infheistíochta. An dtig leis an Aire sonraí a thabhairt ar an dóigh a dtabharfar tacaíocht don SPG le hinbhuanaitheacht a fhorbairt uaidh seo amach? As the Minister is aware, there are huge concerns about Foras na Gaeilge's approach to the SPG and the investment that has been given to the dictionary project by comparison. Will she give details on how the SPG will be supported so that it has better sustainability?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for her question. I share her concern. I, too, have met many representatives of Scéim Phobail Gaeilge from across the North. While they welcome the opportunity for the programme to be extended from three to four years, there appears to be some clarity needed on the availability of running and operational costs. That needs to be clarified, and I will do my best to ensure that it is.

Concerns have also been raised, not just by people in Scéim Phobail Gaeilge but by recipients of the services provided by the groups, particularly those provided by the six lead core-funded groups. Everybody can see what Conradh na Gaeilge does, but there is concern about the rest and what support Foras na Gaeilge can give, particularly to groups in the North. I accept that and hope that that can be resolved as soon as possible.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a ráitis. Ba mhaith liom a fhiafraí den Aire cad é an tionchar a bheas ag na ciorruithe Thuaidh agus Theas ar obair Fhoras na Gaeilge san am atá romhainn? I thank the Minister for her statement. What effect will budgetary cuts, North and South, have on the operation of An Foras Teanga, the language body, in the time that lies ahead?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member will be aware that I have been consistent in ensuring that the percentage of cuts has been minimised, and that has been the pattern over a period of years. I have met colleagues in the Irish Government to state the case for the need for those services, particularly in the North in the absence of an Acht na Gaeilge or anything else. It is vital that I continue to do that. I am, however, concerned that, unlike the Arts Council, Foras na Gaeilge needs to demonstrate to me and, indeed, to Ministers McHugh and Humphreys, how it is absorbing efficiencies rather than passing them on fully to the groups, as that has an impact on the outcome of delivery and services.

I am sure that the Member was here when I answered my colleague Rosie McCorley's question about the Scéim Phobail Gaeilge. That is an example of where a small amount of money would go an awful long way with a big outcome. As the Member will be aware, the legacy of that scheme — I know that he is very supportive of it — will endure. I am still having those discussions with Foras na Gaeilge and, indeed, with colleagues in the Irish Government.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Where is the 2016 business plan? When was it approved? Why is it not mentioned in the statement? What is the budget, and what efficiencies does it embrace?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The business plan is not mentioned in the statement because it has not been agreed yet; it is still under consideration. The budget at this stage is still over £12 million. As I said to Mr Leslie Cree, that is the indicative budget for the language bodies until the preparation of budgets for the new mandates. Those conversations will continue. When the business plan is agreed, it will be brought forward for consideration to the next NSMC sectoral meeting in spring 2016.

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

In this season of goodwill, love and peace, which, I hope, extends to the Chamber, I ask whether the Minister agrees that cultural tourism is one of the fastest-growing tourism markets. Does the meeting between Argyll and Bute Council and Derry City and Strabane District Council indicate that there is an appreciation that cultural tourism is a very significant part of our tourist market? Will that mean that the aspirations of the research done by people such as the late Robert Welch of the then University of Ulster will now come to fruition and that Ireland and Scotland can exchange and appreciate all the cultural things that they have in common?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question and, indeed, for his Christmas cheer. There are some people in the House who definitely need a hug, but I am certainly not up for that.

[Laughter.]

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I would give that a bye-ball.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

As long as she is not coming towards you.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

To be frank, I would not even ask Buddy the Elf to hug you, Gregory, but anyway.

In response to the important question that the Member asked, I can say that opportunities are being discussed, particularly for tourism. Indeed, the work around the Colmcille heritage trail and the Ulster-Scots Agency, with their east-west dimension, was purely focused on exploring opportunities. The Ulster-Scots Agency in particular, in its work in Donegal and Cavan, has looked to exploit tourism opportunities. I believe that that is an example of bringing added value to what is already there. In fact, when we are talking about our cultural heritage, it will help the tourist boards on both sides of the island to have experts here. People who are practitioners in the field can add to the value brought.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

That concludes questions on the statement.

Executive Committee Business

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I beg to move

That the Departments Bill [NIA 70/11-16] proceed under the accelerated passage procedure.

The motion was tabled, in accordance with Standing Order 42(4), to seek Assembly approval to the Departments Bill proceeding under the accelerated passage procedure.

Accelerated passage is an exceptional procedure. It allows a Bill to proceed without the normal Committee Stage, and less time than usual can elapse between legislative stages. On Monday of last week, in advance of the Bill's introduction in the Assembly, junior Minister Pengelly and I attended a meeting of the OFMDFM Committee, as is required by Standing Order 42(3). We had to explain the reasons behind the accelerated passage procedure being needed for the Bill, the consequences of it not being granted and the steps taken to minimise its future use for OFMDFM Bills.

I am pleased to say that the Committee heard our explanations, questioned us and supported the proposal for the accelerated passage procedure by a majority vote. I wish now to explain those same issues to the Assembly and to seek Members' support for the use of the procedure for the Departments Bill.

Reform of the structures of government here has been an issue for a long time. There was a commitment in the Programme for Government to agree changes to the structures that would apply in the next mandate. In 2012, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee produced a report on the reduction in the number of Departments. The report identified areas of commonality broadly comparable to what is now being proposed. The policy proposals underpinning the Bill were the subject of detailed consideration during the political process that led to the Stormont House Agreement in December of last year. That agreement determined on a nine-Department model to be established in time for the 2016 elections, with a future allocation of departmental functions to be agreed by the parties.

The Executive discussed departmental restructuring on several occasions earlier this year and decided on the names and responsibilities of the future Departments. On 2 March 2015, the decisions that had been reached by the Executive on the new departmental structures in consequence of the Stormont House Agreement were announced in a statement by the First Minister to the Assembly. He set out a future model of nine Departments with all the powers, functions and services of the current 12 Departments. The allocation of responsibilities was further refined during the recent talks process.

The purpose of the Departments Bill is to establish the framework for a new nine-Department structure. It renames seven Departments and dissolves another three. It also makes necessary amendments to the Departments (NI) Order 1999, which provides the basis for the existing 12-Department structure.

I will now detail the reasons why accelerated passage is needed for the Departments Bill. Although it had initially been hoped to introduce the Bill at an earlier stage, it is only now, with the conclusion of the recent talks process and the publication of 'A Fresh Start: The Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan', that it has been possible to bring it forward.

'A Fresh Start' reaffirmed the commitment to reduce the number of Departments from 12 to nine in time for the 2016 election and committed to the introduction of the Bill to the Assembly no later than the end of November 2015. It would, of course, have been preferable for the Bill to be introduced in time for it to move forward under the usual processes, but, as with the other Stormont House Agreement matters, progress on departmental restructuring became possible only following the conclusion of the talks process and the establishing of a new consensus with 'A Fresh Start' three weeks ago.

It is essential that the new structures are ready immediately following the 2016 Assembly election so that an Executive can be formed on a nine-Department basis when the next Assembly convenes. To achieve that, it will be necessary for the Departments Bill to complete its passage with sufficient Assembly time left for a debate and affirmative vote on the separate transfer of functions Order that is needed to allocate functions to Departments. That Order can be made only once there is legal certainty regarding the names of the future Departments, which can be achieved only if the Departments Bill has completed its passage by February 2016.

The consequences of accelerated passage not being granted are severe. If it were not granted, it would mean that restructuring could not take place in 2016 and that the incoming Executive after the election would be formed on the basis of the existing 12-Department structure. It would be extremely difficult to achieve restructuring between elections without major disruption to the Executive and the political institutions. Those special circumstances have occasioned this exceptional request to the Assembly for the use of accelerated passage.

The commitment in 'A Fresh Start' to a better way of doing business together should reduce the likelihood of such circumstances reoccurring and future use of accelerated passage by OFMDFM. 'A Fresh Start' has provided a basis for addressing some of our most intractable issues. In relation to departmental restructuring, it has made it possible for us to move forward, but the opportunity needs to be taken quickly, and we ask Members to support the Departments Bill being progressed by accelerated passage. Go raibh maith agat.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence, very briefly, to add my tribute to outgoing MLA Pat Ramsey. It has been a privilege and a pleasure to get to know Pat and to work with him on the Employment and Learning Committee and on a number of all-party groups in the Assembly, including the one on learning disability. Pat is a compassionate and courageous MLA, and he has been a passionate advocate for some of the most at-risk and vulnerable people in our community. I extend my best wishes to him in his retirement on behalf of myself and the Alliance Party.

In relation to accelerated passage for the Departments Bill, I will initially speak on behalf of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister as its Deputy Chair. The rationale for the request for accelerated passage has been set out by junior Minister McCann, along with the rationale for the Bill.

Junior Ministers met the Committee on Monday 30 November, which fulfilled the requirements of Standing Order 42(3), which states that, where it is thought that a Bill should proceed by accelerated passage, the Minister or Member in charge shall:

"explain to the appropriate committee - (a) the reason or reasons for accelerated passage; (b) the consequences of accelerated passage not being granted; and, if appropriate, (c) any steps he or she has taken to minimise the future use of the accelerated passage procedure."

The First Minister announced the decisions that had been reached by the Executive on the proposed new departmental structures to the Assembly on 2 March 2015. It is, in the opinion of the Committee, regrettable that it has taken nine months for the legislation to be introduced and that, as a consequence, it is unlikely that a full Committee Stage will be possible, subject to the Assembly's agreement to the motion.

Junior Minister McCann advised the Committee that it would have been preferable for the Bill to be introduced in time for it to complete normal passage through the Assembly. However, she also explained that the Bill needs to pass through all stages before the transfer of functions Order, which is the mechanism by which the functions and the detail of each Department will be considered, can be introduced. It is in the consideration of the transfer of functions Order that the detail of the changes to departmental structures and functions will be scrutinised. Without the use of the accelerated passage procedure for the Departments Bill, progress to the transfer of functions Order and the new nine-Department structure would not be in place in time for the Assembly election next year. Given that no functions of government are being removed and no polices terminated as a result of the planned restructuring of Departments, the Committee agreed by a majority to support accelerated passage.

If I may, Mr Speaker, I will speak very briefly as an Alliance Party MLA. We support the reduction in the number of Departments and will set out the rationale further in the Second Stage debate. The Departments Bill is a simple aspect of that process. The Bill is relatively short and just names the new Departments. In our opinion, the real scrutiny should fall on the transfer of functions Order. The Alliance Party wants to ensure that all the remaining time can be focused on that, with detailed discussions at the OFMDFM Committee and on the Floor of the Assembly. Therefore, support for accelerated passage should not be misrepresented as curtailing scrutiny. On the contrary, it should be considered as maximising the opportunity for scrutiny where it matters. The Alliance Party will certainly play a full role in that scrutiny to ensure that we devise an efficient Executive structure that can deliver for everyone in Northern Ireland.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate on this motion and, I hope, in the Second Stage debate that will follow. We have before us a Bill that I believe now has the support of people and of Members right across the House. I understand that there is some concern about accelerated passage. However, I think that it is necessary for us to grant accelerated passage if we want the Bill to become law, which is, I think, what everybody here wants. That was not always the case, however. My party has been calling for this for a long time, but there was opposition. As a result of the Fresh Start Agreement, we have the necessary cross-community support, and it is only now that we can proceed. We would have loved the Bill to have been introduced at the start of the mandate, with the opportunity for the proper scrutiny required. However, at this stage, we have a choice: to grant the Bill accelerated passage or not have the Bill at all.

I understand that, by not having a full Committee Stage, there will be less scrutiny. However, Members have the Bill before them and can see that it is very simple. The Bill simply changes the names of the Departments and reduces their number from 12 to nine. As Mr Lyttle said, the real work and the real scrutiny will come when we talk about the transfer of functions Order, which OFMDFM has said that the Committee will have time to look at. The Assembly will have to approve that as well. In addition, the determination of ministerial offices and functions will have to be approved by the Assembly.

Before any of that can happen, we need to make sure that the Bill progresses through all its stages. It is very clear that, if we do not grant accelerated passage today, it is likely that the Bill will fall. The junior Ministers made it very clear that it could not be completed in time without it. I believe that we should grant accelerated passage because we should not give up the opportunity to have this much-needed reform of the Assembly and Departments. If everything went to plan, we would all want to have the additional Committee Stage, but that is not possible. We have this choice to make, and I think that it is right that we move forward and give it accelerated passage. I support the motion and encourage other Members to do the same.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat. I do not wish to add an awful lot to what Members have said; I will probably accelerate my comments. We are all touching on the same issues: reform has been needed for quite a while, and that has been agreed between the parties for quite a while. We have had cross-party support for the reform of our Departments, how we do that and a reduction to nine Departments. As the junior Minister and the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee outlined, the real work will be on the transfer of functions Order and the scrutiny and debate during Second Stage, which, of course, is to follow this. It is important that we have accelerated passage to allow us to get to a better place for Departments. It is what the public and the parties want. I support this accelerated passage, but it is right that we touch on the use of accelerated passage and the fact that we need to be careful about where and how often we use it. I am more than happy, however, to support accelerated passage in this instance.

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

I apologise to the House: I was delayed upstairs at an event when the Deputy Chair of the Committee spoke.

I will take up Mr Hazzard's last comments. It should be the operating principle of the Chamber, whether it is accelerated passage or any vehicle that sidelines or goes around the good authority of the Chamber, that the Chamber should caution itself against any such approach, so that it is rarely used as opposed to routinely used. Unfortunately, we have had examples, even in the last two or three weeks — such examples might increase in the coming two or three months — where the option of an accelerated mechanism, either accelerated passage or a legislative consent motion, has become the practice or attempted practice of some. Whether it was yesterday's LCM, which was rightly defeated, the LCM on welfare reform — the 2012 and 2015 versions — which were wrongly supported, or today's proposal for accelerated passage for the Departments Bill, we need to caution ourselves about going down that road routinely rather than rarely. By using it routinely, we are degrading the character and content of devolution, the good authority of the House and the achievements of democratic struggle in this part of Ireland over many years, which brought into life the institutions that we now value. We need to be cautious about going down this road.

I know that that is broadly the view of all parties, although, in my view, that has been challenged over the last number of weeks by the option of accelerated mechanisms being preferred for a number of matters relating to the authority of the Chamber to the point at which we had an accelerated mechanism yesterday that visited on the people of Northern Ireland not just the 2012 but the 2015 version of welfare reform. The dilution and degrading of devolution, never mind the impact of all that, has been referred to as a "technicality".

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. I accept his argument, and I am certainly not a huge fan of accelerated passage. However, on 23 December 2014, the Stormont House Agreement was, to the best of everyone's knowledge in the House, agreed, but it was reneged on. Had that agreement, which carried the original blueprint for the reduction in the number of Departments, not been reneged on, we would have had 18 months to scrutinise the Bill, to go through it with a fine-toothed comb and not have to use accelerated passage. Will the Member accept that it is the result of some parties reneging on an agreement that has, unfortunately, brought us to this position?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I advise that we need to return to the specific discussion that we are having this morning. I do not think that we are dealing with a generalised drift towards accelerated passage. I did allow you some scope to make that point, but I am afraid that we are heading off in the wrong direction. If you have an issue with the rationale that was provided by the junior Minister for accelerated passage in this particular instance, I would be glad to hear it. Otherwise, we have to move the debate on and back to the subject matter.

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

I thank the Speaker for that intervention. To conclude, I just want to make two points. Without detaining the House and getting into conflict with the Speaker, my first point is that one person's reneging on the agreement, so-called, at Stormont House is another person's honouring of it. Has that not been the dispute over the last six to nine months; that one party's view is, in many instances, in great tension and conflict with the view of other parties?

That all having been said, and having cautioned myself and hopefully a few others about routinely going down the road of using accelerated mechanisms to deal with important business, given the character of the motion that is before us and the opportunity that will arise with the transfer of functions Order, and whilst acknowledging, as was said, that this is a very simple proposal, but one that has very significant consequences — taking all that in the round — on this occasion, we will not dispute with the House that the accelerated passage motion that is before the Chamber is appropriate in these circumstances.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

The Ulster Unionist Party is opposed to accelerated passage for this measure. We fully support the principle that the number of Departments should be reduced and that a more streamlined Administration should be able to deliver better government for the people of Northern Ireland. The Bill should have been introduced earlier and been subject to proper debate and scrutiny. It is not as though this is some idea that has been plucked out of the air: a reduction in the number of Departments has been a subject of discussion for quite literally years. In 2012, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee produced a report on the reduction in the number of Departments and identified areas of commonality, which, to quote junior Minister Pengelly, were:

"broadly comparable to what is now being proposed."

This then fed into the Stormont House Agreement process, which hit the buffers. Part of it was resurrected in 'A Fresh Start', bringing us to where we are today. In essence, it is the failure of the Executive to agree this matter that has put us in the position in which we find ourselves today.

This is not an insignificant Bill. It may be small in terms of clauses, but it is extremely far-reaching in its impact. The Ulster Unionist Party has concerns that it is being introduced so late in the mandate and that the attempt to use accelerated passage means that it will not receive the attention that it deserves or the scrutiny that it merits. Indeed, when the junior Ministers appeared before the Committee on 30 November, junior Minister McCann replied to the Deputy Chair:

"To be honest ... I understand the concern about accelerated passage. ... I fully understand the concerns that you have that the Committee will not be given enough time to scrutinise the Bill."

The simple fact is that we are not arguing against the rationale for going from 12 to nine Departments. We do, however, have an issue with accelerated passage.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

I will not because I am just finishing up here; sorry.

We are, after all, Members of the Legislative Assembly. The clue is in the title. Our job is to legislate. That includes a proper scrutiny function. I oppose accelerated passage.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

There is one reason and one reason only why the motion is before us today: it is because of the dysfunctional failure of the Executive to progress their programme. As it has been pointed out, it was nine months ago, on 2 March, when the First Minister trumpeted the fact that there was agreement to reduce the number of Departments to nine.

Those nine months have been lost and wasted, and now the guilt of that is to be put on us all. We are all meant to feel responsible for that dysfunctional failure of this failing Executive and to rescue them by abrogating the normal processes and proceeding to accelerated passage. That is what is being asked of us.

I must say that I feel no guilt for the failure of the Executive, nor do I feel inclined to share it. It is a failure of their own making. Of course, with the same Executive — What was it? Three or four years ago? — we had the pantomime of DEL going to be abolished, but that all just melted away. As I say, nine months ago, we had the great breakthrough of nine Departments and then nothing until today when we are told that with superhaste we must do this to make up for the abysmal, dysfunctional failure of the Executive. I do not think that is an appeal that I want to respond to, because it only confirms to that Executive that failure is acceptable and they can go on failing as, undoubtedly, they will.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Looking at what we are being asked to do today on accelerated passage, I note that colleagues have set out the history of this issue. I remember that, in May 2011, DEL's going was discussed, that it was going to happen in October 2011 and that the following March at the end of the financial year would be the best time to do it. Minister Farry did not know how long he would get to be Minister. The main debate on that ended up being about the injustice of Alliance having two Ministers, rather than what the model was going to be and whether it was fit for purpose.

Suddenly today, we are faced with accelerated passage. We had a deal on 23 December, almost a year ago, and we knew what the nine Departments would look like. To be fair to the Executive and those who drew them up, they looked on the face of it to be reasonably sensible changes. They were announced on 2 March, but no legislation progressed. The argument that there was political disagreement around it did not stop us continuing to make the argument about welfare reform, and it did not stop Ministers bringing forward a Budget that was based on the Stormont House Agreement. It did not stop all those things happening. Now we are being asked to put through by accelerated passage what some might say is a relatively simple Bill that is not contentious, but it has far-reaching consequences and that goes to the heart of the way the Executive work and the way they treat the legislative arm here.

We get legislative consent motions — one of them was defeated yesterday — and we did our entire welfare reform via a legislative consent motion, which seemed to be a most bizarre way of dealing with it and of building in mitigation measures. Now we are asked to accelerate this Bill. This is not the way that we should do our business.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I will give way in a second.

Other Bills are going through this place through the normal process. We could have had the Bill one month or even two months ago. There was nothing to stop that, even if it had been ready immediately after the Fresh Start Agreement.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. Mr Allen, Mr Allister and Mr McCallister have used the vast majority of their time to raise concerns that I share, but none of them has mentioned any specific concerns about the actual Bill or the issues that they would like to raise in a more extended scrutiny process. I ask Mr McCallister this: are there issues in the Bill that, he thinks, we need more time to scrutinise, given how simple the Bill is?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I caution that we are discussing accelerated passage, so you do have to confine your comments to that subject. If you take issue with the explanation that the junior Minister provided, that is something to discuss, but let us not go into the generality of the rationale behind introducing the Bill in the first place.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Mr Speaker, I was about to remind the Member of your earlier ruling and guidance on this, and I certainly will take up Mr Lyttle in the later debate on those issues. His earlier comments that, because it is simple, we are almost going to accelerate it to improve the scrutiny process raises the question of why we do not accelerate every Bill.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Surely, part of the fallout from accelerated passage is that there is not the normal Committee Stage whereby there could be an informed debate about whether nine Departments is the right number. Maybe there is an argument for six or seven; we used to be governed with six. However, once we adopt accelerated passage, we have de facto concluded the argument about whether or not it is nine, with no options.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

You should resist the temptation to discuss that aspect now; we are talking about accelerated passage or not.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will desist from it until the later debate. I think that there are good points for the coming debate. Those are the reasons why I am against the executive arm of our Government using the legislative branch as a rubber stamp to get its business through. This is not the way. It does not lead to good legislation and does not make an Executive or Assembly look functional when we desperately need public confidence in our Executive and our Assembly.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I am grateful for Members' contributions to the debate. The decisions taken by the Executive on restructuring will result in the most extensive reorganisation of the departmental system since 1999. A reduction to nine Departments will lead to a leaner, more streamlined and efficient Administration; it will provide for more joined-up government with greater cohesion within and between Departments; it will eliminate layers of unnecessary bureaucracy; and there will be greater scope to align functions, to move beyond the silo mentality, to find better ways of achieving our objectives and to improve services to the public.

The introduction last week of the Departments Bill marked an important first step in establishing the legislative basis for departmental restructuring. The Bill will provide the framework for a future nine-Department structure. In due course, a transfer of functions order will make detailed provision for the movement of statutory responsibilities between Departments. It will be subject to Committee scrutiny in draft, and any Committee suggestions for improvement will be given due weight in finalising the order. That order will have to be approved in its final form by affirmative resolution of the Assembly; however, it can only be made in its final form when there is legal certainty regarding the number and names of the future Departments. That can only be achieved if the Departments Bill completes its passage by February 2016.

If the Bill were to miss that target, it would mean that restructuring could not take place in 2016, and the incoming Executive after the election would be formed on the basis of the existing 12-Department structure. Given the difficulties of restructuring an Executive and Departments between elections, it might be years before the opportunity occurred. At this late stage in the mandate and given the need for additional steps in the Assembly after the Bill has cleared Final Stage, there is no alternative to accelerated passage if restructuring is to be achieved in time for the 2016 election.

As I have already indicated, we would have preferred it if the Bill had been introduced in time for it to proceed under the usual processes for Assembly Bills. However, its introduction only became possible with the conclusion of the recent talks process and the publication of 'A Fresh Start: The Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan' on 17 November 2015. 'A Fresh Start' committed to the introduction of the Bill in the Assembly no later than the end of November 2015, and no time has been wasted in ensuring that that target was achieved.

The First Minister and the deputy First Minister immediately obtained Executive agreement to seek Assembly approval for accelerated passage. We briefed a special meeting of the OFMDFM Committee on 30 November, securing the Committee's support. The Bill was introduced immediately after that meeting, and that demonstrates the priority that we attach to it.

I will pick up on some of the issues raised by Members. I thank Chris Lyttle, the Deputy Chairperson. He recognised the reasons for taking the Bill forward under the accelerated passage procedure and mentioned having a longer and better debate on the transfer of functions order, which will be with us in February of next year. Gordon Lyons, Chris Hazzard and Alex Attwood reiterated that point. Although they would prefer accelerated passage not to be used, they, particularly Chris Hazzard and Gordon Lyons, accepted our reasons for using it.

Andrew Allen quoted part of what I said to the Committee's Deputy Chairperson last week, but, if he had gone on to finish the quotation, Members would know that I said why we were doing it. Both junior Minister Pengelly and I recognise the concerns of the Committee and those of other Members, but this is being done totally because of time constraints.

Jim Allister used the debate to make his usual speech about the dysfunctionality of the Executive, and John McCallister rehashed that a bit.

I thank Members for their contributions, and I wish to say that, as with the other Stormont House Agreement matters, the conclusion of 'A Fresh Start' has provided a basis for progressing this important legislation. The provision for good government through streamlined and efficient administration, improved opportunities for policy development, savings on unnecessary bureaucracy and the delivery of better services to the public will be the ultimate outcomes of the Departments Bill. We must move quickly, however, if we are to grasp the opportunity to have restructuring in place when the new Assembly meets in May 2016. That requires accelerated passage of the Departments Bill. I therefore ask the Assembly to approve the motion.

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 the Departments Bill [NIA 70/11-16] proceed under the accelerated passage procedure.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Although there was a shout of No, I am satisfied that there was support from all sides of the House.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Belfast South)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Departments Bill [NIA 70/11-16] be agreed.

In their introduction to the document 'A Fresh Start: The Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan', published on 17 November 2015, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister stated:

"At the heart of this Agreement is our common commitment to a better way of doing business together."

One of the ways in which 'A Fresh Start' provides for that will be by delivering on the commitment in the Stormont House Agreement to reduce the number of Departments from 12 to nine in time for the 2016 Assembly election.

Reform of our structures of government has been an issue for a considerable time. The departmental system established in 1999 has long been regarded as cumbersome and ripe for reform. There was a commitment in the Programme for Government to agree changes to the structures that would apply in the next mandate. In 2012, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee conducted a review and produced a report on the reduction in the number of Departments. It received 21 consultation submissions from party political, academic, economic and community stakeholders. Although the Committee refrained from making recommendations, it identified areas of commonality that broadly reflected its views on how Departments could be reorganised, with the retention of the Department of Health, the Department of Justice and the Department of Education; a new Department for the Economy; a Department embracing agriculture, environment and rural development; a new social and community Department; and the reform of OFMDFM. All those suggestions prefigured what is in this Bill.

The policy proposals underpinning departmental restructuring were the subject of detailed consideration during the political process that led to the Stormont House Agreement, and the Executive discussed the matter on several occasions in the early part of this year. On 2 March 2015, the First Minister announced to the Assembly the decisions that had been reached by the Executive on the new departmental structures as a consequence of the Stormont House Agreement. He set out a future model of nine Departments with all the powers, functions and services of the current 12 Departments. Most importantly, no functions will be done away with and no policies will be terminated at this stage as a consequence of the restructuring.

The nine Departments are to be known as follows: the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs; the Department for Communities; the Department for the Economy; the Department of Education; the Department of Finance; the Department of Health; the Department for Infrastructure; the Department of Justice; and the Executive Office. In almost all cases, the departmental titles are short and focused, with the exceptional case of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, where a longer title has been chosen to reflect the three significant pillars of its work.

The purpose of the Departments Bill is to create a statutory framework for the new model of nine Departments. It is a short Bill. It renames seven Departments and dissolves three others: DEL, DCAL and DOE. The names of two existing Departments — the Department of Education and the Department of Justice — are unchanged.

The Bill also makes necessary changes to the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which provided the basis for the current departmental system. However, important provisions of the 1999 Order on the legal status of Northern Ireland Departments generally and the exercise of their functions will not be amended.

The Departments Bill sets out the framework of nine Departments, as envisaged in the Stormont House Agreement endorsed by party leaders and agreed by the Executive. It is, as I mentioned, a short Bill to establish the new departmental framework in law. It consists of just three clauses and three schedules. Clause 1 renames seven existing Departments and dissolves three Departments — DEL, DCAL and DOE — as required to establish the new structures. There is no reference to the Department of Education and the Department of Justice, which are not affected by the Bill. It applies the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 to the new set of nine Departments. Clause 2 references schedules 2 and 3, which contain, respectively, consequential amendments and repeals. Clause 3 gives the title of the Act and arrangements for the commencements of clauses 1 and 2 on a day or days to be appointed by the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Clauses 1 and 2 are likely to be commenced very shortly after the election in May 2016.

Schedule 1 lists all nine future Departments under the titles that they will carry from 2016, and schedule 2 makes necessary amendments to the Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. The Bill reflects the law as it stands, but we are conscious of the progress in the Assembly of the Public Services Ombudsman Bill, which will supersede the Ombudsman Order. Pending the progress of that Bill, the Departments Bill may require a technical amendment to schedule 2 at a later stage. Schedule 3 repeals provisions in the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, as subsequently amended. It has the effect of removing references to the 12-Department model.

Changing the name of a Department does not, in itself, have any immediate impact on its functions. However, the dissolution of three Departments will involve the reallocation of their existing functions, and there is to be some additional reallocation of the functions of others. Those details, however, are not addressed in the Departments Bill before the House today. Instead, the reallocation of statutory functions will be provided for in a separate transfer of functions order, which is at an advanced stage of preparation. It will make detailed provision for the statutory responsibilities that are to move between Departments in consequence of the Executive's decisions. The order will be sent in draft form for scrutiny to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and we will pay due attention to the Committee's views in finalising that order. In due course, the order will also be subject to an affirmation debate in the Assembly near the end of the session, after the Departments Bill has completed its Final Stage.

The decisions taken on restructuring and the reduction in the number of Departments will provide for a leaner, more streamlined and more efficient Administration. There will be fewer Ministers, and departmental hierarchies, permanent secretaries, central management units, press offices and support functions can be rationalised. However, we re-emphasise that, at this stage, no functions impacting on the public are being done away with and no policies terminated. These are changes to the machinery of government, but they are changes that will help us find better ways of doing things and improving services to the public.

At an operational level, it will be a challenging exercise to reduce 12 Departments to nine. A major programme is being taken forward across Departments to ensure that the necessary administrative arrangements are in place at the appropriate time. This work has been continuing since last spring and is making rapid progress towards all Departments achieving operational status on day one. It will ensure that support for the next Executive, future Ministers and the institutions is in place, with full access to key systems and information.

The conclusion of the recent talks process and the publication of 'A Fresh Start' has provided a basis for addressing some of our most intractable issues. In relation to departmental restructuring, it has made it possible for us to move forward quickly. We all want to improve the performance of Departments and to provide the best possible services to the public. The Departments Bill will help us do that by providing a firm basis for good and efficient government from the outset of the next Assembly mandate. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I rise to speak initially on behalf of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister on the Second Stage of the Departments Bill. The Bill will give effect to the Executive's agreement to reduce the number of Departments from 12 to nine in time for the 2016 Assembly election. It renames seven Departments and dissolves three others, while the names of the Department of Education and the Department of Justice remain unchanged.

The OFMDFM Committee received a pre-introductory briefing on the Departments Bill from junior Ministers on 30 November. The junior Ministers advised the Committee that the aim of the Bill is to deliver more effective, more streamlined and better government for the people of Northern Ireland. In response to questions from Committee members, the junior Ministers also advised that, while the number of ministerial appointments would naturally be reduced as a consequence of the legislation, no decision had been made regarding the appointment of junior Ministers — for example, whether the junior Minister positions will remain in the Executive Office or move to another, larger Department that may be facing significant challenges, such as the Department of Health.

At our meeting, the junior Ministers provided information on the programme board chaired by the head of the Civil Service, which is making practical preparations for the reduction in the number of Departments. Members heard that the head of the Civil Service has given a commitment that the new departmental structures will be ready for the first day of the new mandate following the election scheduled for May 2016.

The Committee was advised that changing a Department's name will not have an impact on its functions and that no functions impacting on the public will cease and no policies will be terminated as a consequence of the structural changes. However, members heard that the functions of the three Departments to be dissolved will need to be reallocated. There will also be some additional rearrangement of functions. These changes will be made by a transfer of functions order that will be brought forward after the Bill has completed its passage through the Assembly. Junior Minister Pengelly advised that it was her understanding — she has confirmed it today — that the drafting of that order is at an advanced stage.

The Committee made it clear that it will require as much time as possible to consider what is likely to be a comprehensive transfer of functions order, and it welcomed a commitment given by the junior Ministers that the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister would work with the Committee on the matter. To ensure that it is informed in its consideration of the order, the Committee has already written to Statutory Committees to seek their views on the proposed functions of the nine new Departments.

There may have been concerns and cautions correctly and sincerely given in the Committee on the use of the accelerated passage procedure for the Bill, but, as the Chair stated at the end of our session with the junior Ministers, there is no disagreement about the urgent need for departmental reform and a reduction in Departments. On behalf of the Committee, I therefore support the Second Stage of the Bill.

Speaking briefly as an Alliance MLA, in supporting the Bill, I make it clear that Alliance has long advocated a reduction in the number of Departments. In our 2011 Assembly manifesto, we argued and proposed a reduction from 12 to eight, but, in the interests of compromise and good governance, we have agreed to the nine-Department structure. There will hopefully be financial savings, but the primary rationale for the proposal is, indeed, to have more efficient and effective government for the people of Northern Ireland. It is hoped that the reorganisation will bring more joined-up government and that synergies can be delivered. However, the Alliance Party would go further and reduce the number of MLAs to 90 in time for the next election. We would also like to see greater use of a statutory duty on Departments to cooperate.

Institutional reform alone, however, will not deliver the effective power-sharing government that I believe the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want to see. We need to see greater cooperation and collaboration between all Departments and difficult decisions being taken. There is a need for cooperation on key issues to unite our community, to build a shared, fair and prosperous society and, indeed, to deliver environmental justice.

In supporting accelerated passage for the Bill, the Alliance Party still very much reserves the right to robustly scrutinise the transfer of functions order that will come forward. We do, indeed, have some concerns about how policy provision for children and young people, for example, will be dealt with, how good relations will be across all Departments and, indeed, where the employment service will rest. Indeed, we make an early indication that we believe it should be in the Department for the Economy. We also have questions about the need for junior Ministers in the Executive Office and, indeed, whether there may be other Departments where there could be a more appropriate use of resources.

I think that Mr McCallister made the most substantive objection to accelerated passage. He mentioned clearly that the Executive branch should not use the legislature as a rubber stamp: I strongly agree with Mr McCallister on that. Accelerated passage is not ideal; it should be used rarely, rather than regularly.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

We dealt with that matter.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

The Assembly should make it clear that it will not be a policy that is tolerated on a regular basis.

The decision before us today is whether we allow failings beyond our making to hold up much-needed institutional reform or show leadership in delivering departmental reform in time for the scheduled elections in May 2016 and to allow proper Programme for Government planning to be delivered further to that election. Alliance, therefore, supports the Bill and supports better, more effective government for everyone in Northern Ireland.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I support the Bill's Second Stage. Without incurring the wrath of the Speaker, I will also say that I support the accelerated passage. In the House, we are here to make decisions, and it is unfortunate that, for so many months, parties and politicians here were prevented from making decisions because partners in government did not have the courage to make the hard decisions that make this place tick and make Northern Ireland thrive. I am glad that that impasse has been unblocked and that things will move forward. Of course, I deeply regret that it has happened so late in the day and so near to the end of the mandate that, unfortunately, things have be done in an accelerated and fast way. Nonetheless, we are here, and the Committee will be able to scrutinise the transfer of functions order, which will be subordinate legislation but very important and detailed subordinate legislation.

The Bill has only three clauses, but three clauses of something that I believe must happen. If you are on the ground, as I am — some of us may not be, but I am on the ground — you will see how the silo mentality works, where it does not work and how it affects the people we represent in the House. Of course, it is fair to say that a good bit of the population blames everything on the council: if there is a pothole in the road, it is the council's fault; if the grass is not cut, it is the council's fault; if there is something wrong with a house, it is the council's fault. Of course, some people have not caught up with the previous reorganisations. We spend nearly every day trying to educate people in that regard, because poor old council gets the blame for everything. It is slightly different here, of course, but, nonetheless, it is more important and something that I believe has to happen.

When you look at the experience of the last mandate in Westminster, you see that it was hard enough for the coalition Government to function with two parties and all the problems that that led to. Think how much more difficult it is in the Assembly with five parties. It is now four, of course, as one party has walked away. There are four parties in government trying to make decisions, trying to push things forward and trying make things happen. It creates silo mentalities and problems when four or five parties are all coming from a different place, all wanting to go to a different place and all occupying a different space.

I welcome the reduction in the number of Departments from 12 to nine, which our party has campaigned for ever since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement and ever since the institutions have been up and running. We promised the electorate on that day that we would make things better and would repair the damage that was caused by the Good Friday Agreement and the functions of government that were formed in it. We stand here today having completed some of that work and are now moving forward, but we have to recognise that, for that to happen and for progress to be made, we must have agreement from all the parties involved. We will strive to do that day in, day out to persuade people of our arguments, persuade them that we are right and persuade them that this is the way to go. I believe that this is the way to go.

Savings will be made, but what we really want is efficient and effective government for our people, as they deserve nothing less; we will push and probe and work every day for that to happen. Even the reduction in the names of the Departments is a good thing, as it will help people to understand exactly what those Departments do and what functions they hold. That is something to be positive about because it will help to educate people on where they need to go and what they need to do.

The functions, roles and responsibilities of Departments will not change. Some are being merged and some grown, but that is a good thing. That will take away the silo mentality that I talked about and result in more efficient and effective government. With that, there will be savings in pounds and pence in the everyday functions of Departments, and those savings will filter down into the everyday lives of our population. Again, that has to be welcomed.

There is not much more to talk about. It is a three-clause Bill. It needs to happen, and I put it to the House that it should be passed. This is good business, as it is us moving forward. Let us keep going and let us keep making hard decisions. A lot more decisions than just that on this Bill have to be made, and I am glad that those will be made in the following months to try to get the legislation over the line before the mandate is finished. Let the Committee scrutinise the transfer of functions order, which will be the subordinate legislation.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I speak on behalf of Sinn Féin to support the Bill and to commend junior Minister Pengelly for explaining to the House the rationale behind it. She went through the clauses and what they represented comprehensively. It is fair to say that, for some time, there has been all-party support for reform of the structures. There has been agreement on a reduction in the number of Departments. We now have that proposal in front of us, and, as far as we are concerned, this is the time for us to get on with it.

It is about delivering what we promised we would deliver. I hope that, in the context of the recent discussions and negotiations, this will form part of evolving this place into a more efficient place with more effective working relationships. On that basis, I commend the Bill and support it on behalf of Sinn Féin.

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

First, I acknowledge the contribution of Pat Ramsey to politics in the north-west, on the island and in the Chamber. His craft in working with other parties, his craft in his contributions on the Floor of the Assembly and his craft in taking forward many issues in a very productive way are the measure of what he will leave in the Chamber as he moves forward in his life.

In her opening remarks, the junior Minister sourced this proposal not just in Stormont House last Christmas but in 'A Fresh Start': I wish that people would stop doing that. Everybody knows that 'A Fresh Start' — this is the kindest comment that I can make about it — is a false start. All the hopes, expectations and ambitions of so many of our people in those negotiations can be best summed up as a false start rather than a fresh start. May I also again caution us? If you analyse the contributions of both junior Ministers — I know that this is not what they intended in their contributions, and I am sure that it is not what others, including Mr Frew, intended in theirs — there is a sense that, somehow or other, the reduction to nine Departments is a panacea for the failure of politics, government and Ministers over recent years.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will give way, but I will finish this point before I do.

The junior Ministers say that having nine Departments:

"will provide for more joined-up government"

and "eliminate ... unnecessary bureaucracy" and so on and so forth. We hear scores of warm, meaningless phrases on how, somehow, the mere reduction to nine Departments will have a transformative impact on the character of government and the content of our politics. That view, if anybody indulges it, is as idle as it is casual, false and foolish.

Having nine Departments can mean more joined-up government and the elimination of unnecessary bureaucracy, but the mere fact of having nine does not bring that into reality.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. I do not think that anyone in the House in this debate has said that having nine Departments is a panacea for good government. However, what makes bad government is when elected representatives do not make hard decisions. Not making hard decisions will affect our populace and make their lives worse. That is what makes for bad decisions and bad politicians in the House.

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

I am glad that the Member made that point because I am going to address it in my next comments. I accept that nobody said that the reduction in the number of Departments to nine — or, if Mr Allister had his way, to six, seven, eight, or whatever notion might be presented by any Member — would by itself improve things. I am making the point that Mr Frew made, namely that having nine Departments may help, but only if the wider architecture and character of government is such that it maximises the opportunity presented by having nine, rather than more than nine, Departments.

Let me ask the junior Minister something. There was a phrase that she used. I know why she put it on the record and I would like to probe her a wee bit in this regard. She, rightly so, said:

"no policies will be terminated at this stage as a consequence of the restructuring."

Obviously, that is a very important thing that she should say. However, let me refer to the contribution that she made two weeks ago at Question Time when she made reference to the High Court judgement in relation to the failure of the Government to have an anti-poverty strategy. I will conclude this point quickly because I am sure that it is already beginning to irritate the Speaker, but I think that it is fair to ask, in the context of this proposal, what she was getting at in the contribution that she made on behalf of the First Minister, who has now joined us, when she said, in response to the questioning of Members in respect of the anti-poverty strategy:

"There is a proposition out there that all our programmes should be rolled out in relation to spatial need ... The vast majority of the services that we roll out through the Northern Ireland Executive are on objective need, but not necessarily on spatial objective need ... There are a range of programmes through the Department for Social Development and OFMDFM that we will continue to roll out in relation to spatial deprivation. But there is a lot of misunderstanding in relation to objective need. There needs to be greater clarification about that. Hopefully, we will take the opportunity to develop the strategy and give clarity on that matter." — [Official Report, Vol 109, No 8, p28, col 1].

I am wondering, behind the comment that she made this morning that no policies will be terminated at this stage, what all those words mean in relation to the core value and principle of objective need rather than spatial deprivation? Is there a rebalancing about to go on, if some people get their way, in relation to all those sorts of issues? The junior Minister may want to come back on that.

I will now deal with the point Mr Frew rightly made in relation to what will happen on the far side of nine Departments being established. That is the key issue. What is going to be the character and content of the Government on the far side of nine Departments being created? In my view and that of the SDLP, if we are going to maximise the opportunities of having nine Departments and the opportunities for the Government into the next mandate and beyond, a range of other interventions are complementary and mutual to the nine-Department model. In that regard, these are the points that I would make to Mr Frew. He may have heard me say this before, because I say it all the time, no doubt somewhat tediously, that there is a huge difference between Ministers being in the Government and being in power, and that any Minister —

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Nobody should know that better than you.

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

You may well make that point from a sitting position, First Minister. However, there is a huge difference between being in the Government and being in power. In fact, when I left the Government, I got a letter from the First Minister and deputy First Minister about the contribution that I made during the time that I was in the Government. You may recall that. I do not know whether the First Minister writes to all former Ministers when they have vacated office, but, on this occasion, he certainly found it necessary, for some reason or other, and I acknowledge the letter and thank him and the deputy First Minister for it.

The point that I am making is that, when I was in the Government, I know when I did not live up to the difference between being in the Government and being in power. I know where I made errors and mistakes, and I still regret some of them; because what I left behind when I left the Government was less than I might otherwise have achieved if I had not made those mistakes and errors.

The wider point is this: do we as a political institution, and do those who are going into and are in the Government, fully appreciate the difference between being in the Government and being in power, in the way that, as I have always said, in my view, the Scottish Nationalist Government did? That was long before they led the campaign for independence and had the election result that they had last May and in anticipation of the results that they are likely to have next May. Long before all that narrative, I was saying that Sturgeon, Salmond, Swinney and the other Ministers in Scotland knew more than any panel of Ministers on these islands the difference between being in the Government and being in power. Whether it is nine, 10, 11 or 12 Departments, if you end up with Ministers who are still short in knowing the difference between being in the Government and being in power, the nine-Department model will not remedy that failure. Mr Frew seems to be nodding in agreement.

In terms of the quality and character of our Government going into the next mandate and for decades thereafter, we in the SDLP believe that, whilst one day we will win the argument for the reunification of our country, part of the architecture of the reunification of our country will be an Assembly in the North for a multiplicity of reasons. However, if we are going to have assemblies in the North over many decades, are we going to have a panel of Ministers that demonstrates the difference between being in the Government and being in power?

The reason why that is so important is that a consequence of nine Departments is that Ministers will have a wider range of responsibilities and, if the Ministers are not fully facing up to and able to deal with the wider range of responsibilities that they have within their Departments because the Departments are bigger, there could be a greater failure of government on the far side of nine Departments than before. The need for coordination and integration between Departments could also be at some risk, given that Ministers, even in their day-to-day work, will have a higher level of responsibility and power.

The second point that I will make is this. There is a curious reference in A Fresh Start/False Start. The decision to bring in Eileen Evason in order to make recommendations on how welfare moneys might be spent in mitigation was, in my view —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I ask you to clearly establish the connection between this current point and the discussion before us. We are discussing the Departments Bill.

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

I appreciate that, but I am really taking up what Mr Lyttle said in his contribution when he was not speaking as Deputy Chair of the Committee. I am looking at the model of nine and trying to outline, as the SDLP sees it, where there could be added value over and above the fact that there will be nine Departments. The point that I am making, Mr Speaker, is that bringing in Eileen Evason is a recognition that there is such a scale of authority outside government that can inform the work of nine Departments, when we have the nine Departments established. Going by that model, all the Eileen Evasons should be brought in to help government in order to maximise the working of the nine Departments in the next mandate and beyond.

For all the skills and craft of many in the Civil Service, the lateral and most imaginative independent thinking often comes from outside the nine Departments that we will have. The scale of input that we could have — not through the civic advisory forum alone, useful though limited as that model will be — and the opportunity to bring in people who are the specialists in business, anti-poverty, human rights, disability, the environment or whatever it might be, as we are doing with Eileen Evason on the recommendations on allocations of welfare mitigation moneys, is a model that we need to escalate. The experience that I had in Departments, certainly in the Department of the Environment, was that the freshest thinking often came in when it was structured into the life of the Department through various summonses. Maybe the First Minister thinks that that did not add up to very much; my experience was that it added up to an awful lot. If we are going to maximise the opportunities with nine Departments, there is another way to do it. The reason why I say that is that, in an event held upstairs in the last two hours, the Equality Coalition launched a report called 'Austerity and Inequality: A Threat to Peace?'. I might not necessarily agree with that contention, but, nonetheless, one of the speakers said that the relationship between civil society and government had to be of a different character in the future from what it had been in the past.

Mr Frew has gone, but I want to make the point that it required a private Member's Bill from Steven Agnew to put into law a statutory requirement on Departments to cooperate on children's services. That was echoed by, I think, the Deputy Chair of the Committee, Mr Lyttle, who called for a more general statutory duty between Departments. My sense is that, while nine Departments could have more coherence internally and externally with the other Departments, the best way to discipline everybody to ensure that we have the best form of government going forward is to have statutory duties to cooperate and statutory requirements in respect of any policy sector. Whilst nine Departments may accommodate that, although it may not for the reasons that I have outlined, in our view, there is a need to build into the legal architecture of government responsibilities and duties to ensure that that to which we all aspire — joined-up government and the best outcomes for our people — is secured, rather than put in jeopardy.

Save those comments, we are content to support the motion.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

Let me say from the outset that the Ulster Unionist Party fully supports the principle that the number of Departments should be reduced and a more streamlined Administration should be able to deliver better government for the people of Northern Ireland.

As I said earlier, the Bill could and should have been brought before the House for proper debate and scrutiny a long time ago. It is not some new idea that has appeared out of the ether. In September 2009, the independent review of economic policy (IREP), chaired by the then vice chancellor of the University of Ulster, Professor Richard Barnett, put forward a series of significant policy recommendations intended to assist the Executive in realising their goals of strengthening productivity and raising living standards in Northern Ireland. The review was commissioned by the then Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister, Arlene Foster, to advise on the extent to which existing polices could help to meet the objectives stated in the Programme for Government and to put forward new policies if needed. One of the key recommendations was that the core economic functions covered by DETI and DEL's areas of responsibility should be brought under a single Department of the Economy.

It should be noted that the IREP report was welcomed by Minister Foster, who said that she would give it her:

"full and urgent consideration and will work closely with ... Executive colleagues, listening to their views and seeking a consensus on the way forward."

She also said that, given the importance and complexity of the matters addressed, she intended to carry out a short period of consultation on the report and wanted to reach timely conclusions and initiate purposeful actions as soon as possible. That was just over six years ago.

As far as the Ulster Unionist Party was concerned, we were fully signed up to the idea of a single Department of the Economy, which the party leader, Mike Nesbitt, endorsed at our AGM in March 2013. It entailed effectively scrapping DEL and combining it with DETI. That was followed up in our 2014 European manifesto, which stated:

"The Ulster Unionist Party believes the creation of a single streamlined Department of the Economy is essential if we are to capitalise on opportunities for promoting growth and prosperity in the EU".

With regard to the Assembly more generally, in 2012, the Assembly Executive and Review Committee produced a report on the reduction in the number of Departments. It identified areas of commonality that — I quote junior Minister Pengelly when she appeared before the Committee on 30 November — were:

"broadly comparable to what is now being proposed".

That fed into the Stormont House Agreement process, which hit the buffers, and part of it was resurrected in Fresh Start, bringing us to where we are today. This is not some idea that has emerged out of left field; it has been around the block on a few occasions. As I said earlier, this is not an insignificant Bill. It may be small in the number of clauses, as Mr Lyttle outlined, but it is of acute importance. It will, quite literally, impact on every person in Northern Ireland from the day and hour that we eventually reduce the number of Departments from 12 to nine. That is why, in this debate on accelerated passage, I state that the Ulster Unionist Party has concerns about such an important Bill being introduced so late in the mandate. The attempts to use accelerated passage mean that it will not receive the attention that it deserves or the scrutiny that it clearly merits.

I say again that we are not arguing against the rationale for going from 12 to nine Departments. Our quarrel is not with the content of the Bill per se; it is with the failure of the Executive to run a Government and to get this matter agreed. That is why the Assembly is in the position that it is in today. The IREP report was produced in September 2009. The fact that it has taken more than six years to get to a position where we can firmly begin to see a single Department for the Economy take shape is nothing short of pitiful. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on the Bill. Before I move to the substantive nature of what I want to say, I, too, pay tribute to Mr Pat Ramsey, who, I understand, will have his last plenary today. Some might say that, in this business of politics, gentlemen are in short supply; therefore, it is regrettable when we lose one. I can certainly say that I have always found Mr Ramsey to be an exceptionally good man and a huge encouragement, and I have enjoyed very much getting to know him over the last few years.

Anybody who knows me will know that, when I speak sometimes, in order for me to process it in my own mind, I like to demonstrate with an anecdote, and I will start with a little story to set the scene for what I want to say. Some people may know that I am a keen motorcyclist. The motorcycle sits in the garage for 49 weeks of the year, given our wonderful Northern Ireland climate, but, in the three weeks of the year that I manage to get it out of the garage, I get on it and do not really choose where I am going. I do not really care where I am going. It is about the experience of the journey and the freedom and enjoyment that come from it. The reason that I tell that brief story is that, in my time in politics, I have met people who fall into that category. They are not overly concerned about the destination; all they seem to be consumed with is the journey. In politics, that is a dangerous position to find ourselves in.

I have found that some people are on a journey of electability. They are more concerned with sound bites and what might be happening around them than with concentrating on their destination.

There are others who are on a journey of — I use the word guardedly — vengeance. They are disappointed by things that have happened in the past and, rather than concentrate on where we should be going, dwell on those things, which allows them to become bogged down in preventing the progress that is required. You may even meet some who are on a journey of inflexibility and do not accept the fact that the world around them is changing. Rather than focusing on the destination, those people are completely bogged down by the changes that are happening around them that they find very difficult to accept.

As my colleague Mr Frew said, that is not what we are elected to do. We are not elected to renege on our responsibilities as elected representatives. Sometimes, decisions will be easy; sometimes, they will be difficult. For the first time in a long time, we are debating a Bill that, in the world outside this little bubble, people are very interested in. We have spent the last four and a half years in the knowledge that we have had spending cuts imposed on us, asking the public and the public sector to tighten their belt, feel a bit of pain and do something to be more efficient. This is our opportunity, as a Government, to contribute. I share Mr Lyttle's aspirations to make the Assembly more efficient, to make it work better and, ultimately, to make sure that there is not wastage in it.

We have been asking doctors, pharmacists and civil servants to tighten their belt. Therefore, we should be very proud of the Bill. It could be better, but it could always be better. We have finally got to a point at which the number of Departments as they stand will be reduced to nine. Of course, there are then the outworkings of that, with a reduction in the number of private offices, special advisers and permanent secretaries and in the whole infrastructure that comes with government.

I am bemused when I listen to some people in the Assembly, regardless of how long they have been here, who seem to fail to see the complexities that exist in a coalition Government. Whether we like it or not, we are in a Government in which we rely on an element of agreement to get things through. I am hugely regretful that there are some parties in the Assembly who have failed in their duty to step up to the mark, do the right thing and do the things that the people want us to do.

I am glad that 'A Fresh Start' has been produced and that there is agreement on it. I am glad that legislation has already been brought to the House that will enable the decisions that were taken in that agreement to happen, and to happen as quickly as possible. Members should not be in the business of insulting not just the intelligence of the people in the Assembly and on the Executive but the intelligence of people outside the Assembly who know that there is a coalition Government in this place, know the reason for that and know that every effort is being made to try to make this place work as well as it possibly can for the people whom we represent. For anybody to be in denial about that shows, with respect, an element of naivety about the position that we find ourselves in.

I am not going to dwell on the accelerated passage procedure any further. We are where we are with that. If we are to get the Bill passed before the election in 2016, we have to be realistic. It would have been better had we been able to do that this time last year, but, unfortunately, circumstances somewhat overtook us.

In relation to staff, there will obviously be concerns around a contraction of any element of the public service. My understanding is that the terms and conditions of employment will remain relatively unchanged. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that. Trade unions will be consulted. I understand that trade unions will have their own views, and there is always an element of hysteria among the trade unions when there is any sort of suggestion around a reduction in the number of public servants, the size of Departments, and the number of staff who come along with that. However, I am sure that those consultations will happen. Whilst we may not be able to deliver everything that the trade unions are asking for, I am sure that every effort will be made to make this as smooth a transition as possible.

There is also the issue of arm's-length bodies. I ask the Minister to address in her closing comments what the likely impact will be on those. Will there now be an opportunity, with a reduced government size as far as the number of Departments is concerned, to take a look at the arm's-length bodies — these unelected quangos, if I could call them that? I accept that many of them deliver a very good service. However, I do not believe that they should be any more immune from cuts than the rest of us.

I know that there had been some suggestion that the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, which I have done a lot of work with, would be brought into the new Department of Justice. I hope that I am correct in my understanding that that is now not going to be the case and that it will remain in the Department of Health. I would welcome that; perhaps we could get confirmation of that.

I support the Bill and I hope that we will see it progress as quickly as possible. I hope that, for once, the news about the Assembly that is carried this evening will be that we have agreed something that is going to save the public some much-needed money. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate and hope that we have cross-House support for the Bill.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate and very much welcome the Bill. It is very good that we are now at the stage where we are able to progress it. It is another significant step in the much-needed reform of the Assembly and the Executive. It is no secret that my party has been calling for measures such as these for quite a long time; in fact, since 1998. It has to be said that, when these institutions were established in 1998, decisions around the number of Departments and, indeed, the number of MLAs were made not in the best interests of people or government in Northern Ireland but with political considerations factored into them. It was about giving parties seats not only in this place but around the Executive table. The institutions here, which came about as a result of what took place in 1998, are not what they should be. Reform is necessary. I am pleased that we are taking this step today.

When we consider this Bill, what are the benefits that we find in it? Mr Attwood made a number of points. I do not know whether Mr Attwood is trying to steal the crown from Mr Allister for who can be the most negative Member in the Chamber. It seems that he has been quite negative about a lot of things of late, and that is obviously his right as a Member of the Assembly. However, we have in front of us a very good Bill. First, what we have here are savings that will come from our having a smaller government. A reduction in the number of Departments means a reduction in the number of Ministers, a reduction in the number of private offices, a reduction in the number of special advisers, a reduction in the number of permanent secretaries, a reduction in departmental central management units, a reduction in the number of press offices, a reduction in the number of Assembly liaison offices and a reduction in the number of finance and HR branches within those Departments.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I will, of course, give way.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Does the Member accept that, yes, you will save money in the categories he is talking about, but it will be quite a small amount, unless you have a much larger reduction in the overall number of civil servants?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am just getting to that point. Yes, we will have savings. It is obvious that those savings will be made; after all, what I have just listed will not be there any more. However, those savings will, perhaps, be small compared with the benefits that will come as a result of us having more efficient government.

I go back to the point I was making. We will reduce all of those things. That will make savings, but no functions will be done away with, and no policies will be abolished. They will be important savings, but the best thing to come as a result of the Bill will be the transfer of functions and the joining up of functions that should be together. I want to give one example of that. Yesterday, my colleague Lord Morrow wanted to raise a point of order in the Chamber in relation to flooding that had taken place in his constituency. He asked the Speaker what the best way was for him to raise that matter in the Chamber. The Speaker replied that he had decided not to allow a question for urgent oral answer because:

"I found that not only were a number of areas affected but three Ministers were involved." [Official Report, Vol 110, No 2, p39, col 1].

That is the problem that we have with a number of issues: functions are found in different Departments.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I give way to Mr Beggs.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member rightly highlights the duplication that exists with regard to flooding. There is the involvement of the Rivers Agency, Transport NI, obviously, and Northern Ireland Water, potentially. In recent years, the former Minister for Regional Development argued that we should bring forward the transfer and create one Department that would be responsible for flooding to try to better coordinate such events: why has that not happened sooner?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I do not know why it has not happened sooner, but I am glad that it is happening now. What we see in section F of the Fresh Start Agreement is that a lot of these issues will be brought in under the control of one Department. I would certainly like to see that happen, and I am glad that it will happen.

Obviously, we are here to talk about the general principles of the Bill. I am pleased that we will have further opportunity to talk about what functions are going where, by way of the Committee's scrutiny, which has been promised by OFMDFM. That will give us an opportunity to talk about that further. This is a short Bill. In my view, it brings savings in the cost of government, it brings functions together and it moves around departmental responsibilities, which will allow for more efficient government. However, it does something else: it continues the reform that is needed in this place. I am pleased that we will have a reduction in the number of MLAs. Although that will not happen until 2021, it shows that the process of reform continues. I think it was my colleague Mr Frew who said that we were in a system where we have to get the support of other Members and we have to convince people of the merits of our arguments. There are Members and parties in the House that were opposed to cutting the number of Departments from 12, and we have now secured that agreement. There are parties in the House who disagreed with cutting the number of MLAs, and we have now got that agreement. We are making progress, and that is welcome. There is, of course, more to be done, but this Bill has my full support, and I urge Members to support it.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Ulster Unionist Party welcomes the proposed reduction in the number of Departments from 12 to nine. It is better late than never. There are advantages, such as saving on personnel, but, more importantly, as I briefly outlined, there will be greater clarity of areas of responsibility and an ability to better coordinate.

As my colleague Andy Allen pointed out, the reorganisation of Departments has been in the pipeline for years, with none more so than the creation of a single Department for the Economy. That goes back to 2009, when the independent review of economic policy made its recommendations. We were told at the time by the then Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Minister Foster, that she would give the report "full and urgent consideration". Improving government structures for the economy has been so urgent that it has taken six long years to get to where we are today. Given the current situation, with the Republic of Ireland's economy reported to be growing three times faster than Northern Ireland's, the sooner that happens, the better.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. I am a little surprised, and perhaps he could provide some clarity for me. He complains about the time that this has taken. However, his party was opposed to accelerated passage, which would allow this to happen in the first place. Does he not see a contradiction in holding those two positions?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

We are simply pointing out what good government is. Good government should not rely on accelerated passage. This has been talked about for years and years; with regard to the Department for the Economy, it has been six years. Why has this legislation not been moved sooner? It is absolutely ridiculous that we are facing it only now, a few months from the end of the Assembly term. Remember, the Assembly was originally to be a four-year Assembly. We are already on nine months of borrowed time and are beyond what should have been our life.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I want to proceed.

In its latest forecast, the consultancy firm EY, formerly Ernst and Young, has predicted that the Northern Ireland economy will grow by 1·7% in 2015, whilst the Republic of Ireland's growth is forecast to be 5·8%. I reiterate: three times as fast as ours. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better. The Assembly was supposed to be about delivery, not survival. It was supposed to be about delivering for the people of Northern Ireland. It is past time that this Northern Ireland Executive started delivering. Their time is running out. It is time for a new Executive to be in place and to deliver to meet the needs of the people.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. Briefly following on from the last intervention, I appreciate that the Member's party has now taken an oppositional stance, but can he advise what his party did on departmental reduction and government reform when it was in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member is referring to something that happened several decades ago. I do not have the details at hand. You are trying to rely on something that happened decades ago, but that was a very different time. Clearly, we need to move forward. Having sown the seeds of a stable, democratic Northern Ireland several decades ago, we think it should now be about delivering and good governance. That is what needs to happen today.

For too long, the Executive have played fast and loose with people's prospects for jobs and of having money in their back pocket. Youth unemployment remains stubbornly high — among the highest in the United Kingdom — and the so-called Fresh Start Agreement is beginning to look like a false start, with Sinn Féin already rowing back from its support for the devolution of corporation tax-varying powers and setting the rate at 12·5% in 2018. If the reorganisation of Departments is to happen, it should be done correctly and should not be rushed through. We have not seen the transfer of functions order, which is mentioned in the Fresh Start Agreement. The agreement states:

"There have been some amendments to the transfer of functions from OFMDFM and between departments. These will be reflected in the supporting Transfer of Functions Order which is currently being drafted."

Earlier in the debate, Mr McIlveen referred to other changes that have been agreed. Whatever is happening behind the scenes should be happening transparently, with the public being able to make suggestions as well. It should not be a case of deals being made in smoke-filled rooms where one side gets this and the other side gets that, or something equally ridiculous. This should be about good governance for Northern Ireland. Hopefully, the Executive will move forward, giving the public and MLAs a copy soon.

Where is this transfer of functions order? The latest that we have been told is that we can expect it some time in the new year. Well, we know that we will definitely get it before the election in May 2016. It is easy to say that we will get it some time in the new year, because if we do not get it then, we will not get it at all. Why do we not have a date for its arrival? Why was the Bill afforded accelerated passage, and why has it not been given proper time for scrutiny?

Every party in the House wants to see a reduction in the apparatus of government to give us a more streamlined and efficient Executive. Sinn Féin and the DUP should have absolutely nothing to fear from proper scrutiny; it makes for better government.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he not agree that, had his colleague stayed in the Executive, he would have had all those answers and, not only that, he would have had his input into the decision-making on the answers that he now seeks? You gave up your opportunity to have an input and to come here and ask questions.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for his contribution. If it was a real partnership Executive, with everyone valued and treated with respect, the Member's assertion would have some merit, but that is not my understanding of how his party and the DUP run the Executive. They made their side deals and treated everyone else like fodder. We have to move on to improve things for everyone in Northern Ireland.

I want to pick up on the earlier intervention on the issue of flooding. The Department for Regional Development is responsible for Northern Ireland Water and, when storm water enters our sewerage systems, it has a role, under the responsibilities that it has, to react during floods. Similarly, Roads Service, which is now Transport NI, has a responsibility for culverts and grilles etc. We have learned that there is potential for road grilles to be blocked, and they have to be maintained to avoid flooding. The Rivers Agency, under the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, has responsibility for the flow of rivers and ensuring, for example, that ditches do not become clogged and result in flooding. It is also responsible for producing flood maps and determining new development.

The flood helpline service was located in the Department of Finance and Personnel — someone may put me right if I have got that wrong. When there is flooding, the public can contact the Department of Finance and Personnel or go straight to Rivers Agency, to Northern Ireland Water or Transport NI. Frequently, they do not know whom to contact — they just want help — and, in other instances, councils frequently assist. Several years ago, recognising that difficulty, Danny Kennedy, the former Minister for Regional Development — bravely to my mind — suggested that he would be willing to take all this on in one single Department so that there could be single responsibility, better coordination and better delivery for the public. What happened? It was not agreed. Why do we have to wait until there is some big deal and a stitch-up? Why can we not be mature as an Assembly and, when we see areas for improvement, move forward, improving things as we go along? We are meant to be serving the people of Northern Ireland. We are meant to be legislating for improvements and meeting their needs, not the needs of the political bubble that may exist here at Stormont. The changes that are being proposed to reduce the number of Departments from 12 to nine can allow that to happen, and I hope that they will. There is an indication that that is the direction of travel, but why are we taking so long? Why are we not publishing the changes in a draft format, thus allowing the public to have an input? Someone might spot another area for improvement that the experts have overlooked and make a suggestion to the Committee that will be scrutinising it. Again, that would have widespread support. And guess what? It would deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. After all, as the First Minister once said, this Assembly term was to be about delivery, not about survival. We all know what has happened. Where has the delivery been? The current Executive have let the people down. They have failed them. They have not delivered much, apart from stumbling from one false start to another.

It is more important than ever that the next steps that the House takes are the right steps, with a clear direction and sense of purpose. They should be about delivery for the people in Larne, in Carrickfergus, in Newtownabbey and, indeed, right across the Province, not just about what suits some parties here in the Stormont bubble. Why can the House and, indeed, the community not be presented with all the facts on all the proposals, instead of a Bill being railroaded through under accelerated passage? If the Assembly is going to legislate, let us make sure that it does it right. The Bill should get the attention that it deserves. Let us be clear: the Ulster Unionists fully support the reduction in the number of Departments from 12 to nine, but we do not support the rushed job that is being driven through by the Sinn Féin and DUP coalition, which appears to be afraid of scrutiny and seems to be obsessed with retaining its control and its fingerprints. It is about not what is best for the community but whatever Sinn Féin and the DUP decide.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I listened intently to Mr McIlveen's story, and, when he talked about being on the journey, it reminded me of what I have often said about the Executive. The old adage is this: if you do not know where you are going, any road will take you there. The Executive have never quite looked as though they have had that purpose and direction, and, if they were to come to a fork in the road, to use Mr McIlveen's analogy, they would not know what direction to go in. To deal with it, they would probably form a commission or hope that Westminster or somewhere else would come in and make the decision for them. From listening to many Members in the debate, I can see that that demands almost a culture change for our Executive, whatever the number of Departments happens to be. Whether it is six, nine 12, they have to get to the point at which, as Mr Attwood put it, they look as though they are in power, not just in office, and able to exercise the Departments in a collective manner. That has bedevilled the process almost from when we began with these devolved institutions in 1998, from collapse through to the St Andrews Agreement, where there was almost a trial run at stopping what the DUP termed the end of solo runs by Ministers.

That comes back to how we share power here.

You will have heard me say before that we do not have genuine power-sharing; we have shared-out power. If going to nine Departments helps us to genuinely share power, that is the challenge. Not only do we need a clear direction on where the Government want to go, but there is an onus on political parties to start to work and think about what they want the Government to do. What do they want from whatever Departments or Executive there are and what do they want in a Programme for Government?

I welcome some of the things in 'A Fresh Start'. I welcome some of the changes to the Departments that we are debating today. I also welcome the idea that you would negotiate at the start. It is the wrong way round in 'A Fresh Start': you have to declare that you want to take up your position in the Government before entering negotiations. However, that, I suspect, is something for the parties that qualify to get to.

Once you reduce the number of Departments and whether you like it or not, you change the dynamic of how many parties might qualify for government. If the election results were exactly the same as in 2011, with nine Departments, Alliance would not be a party of government in the sense that it would not qualify under d'Hondt in the current arrangements. That is a change.

My Bill is in Committee at the minute, but I have set out in it some of the issues around unitary government and collective responsibility. Some of what is in this Bill and was agreed in 'A Fresh Start' does not go far enough, but it starts to move us down a certain road. Other parties seem to have accepted that we cannot continue with a model of government that looks so dysfunctional that even the head of the Administration has to refer to it as dysfunctional. These are all things that have to be addressed.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. Would the Executive not be, arguably, less representative, given what you propose for qualification for the Executive?

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

If you put in a threshold? Absolutely, it would be. You change that by improving collective responsibility. Not everybody who is in government honours those principles. Look at yesterday's debate on a legislative consent motion: two parties in the Government voted one way, and the other half of the Government voted against them. You cannot continue with that, as I have often said about government policy. If this Bill helps to deliver more cohesive government with nine Departments, you start to build in some of that. We cannot continue with a Government in which half the parties vote one way and half votes the other. That is where collective government comes from. I make the point that, if having nine Departments starts to move us, even slightly, down that road, it is to be welcomed. However, you are relying very much on a culture change to deliver that.

Mr Lyttle talked about needing a statutory duty to cooperate. What I have proposed and what I would like to see in the Departments Bill goes much further than a statutory duty; it will enshrine that collective Cabinet responsibility. It goes significantly further.

On some of the issues around the Bill and the transfer of functions that will come, I note the change in intention to move the Fire and Rescue Service to the Department of Justice. That is probably welcome: the last thing that we need is our Fire and Rescue Service coming into some political mess, which there was a risk of with it coming into the Department of Justice.

The ultimate aim of all of this has to be delivering good governance. The fact that we are changing the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, which has been described by many as the most dysfunctional Department in government — to the Executive Office and to a coordinating role is to be welcomed. That is why I supported Mr Allister's SpAds Bill. It is important that with these changes we set limits on how many special advisers there should be. For example, the new Executive Office will clearly not need eight SpAds and two junior Ministers. I look forward to the junior Minister responding to this. A much more sensible use of junior Ministers would be to have one in the Department for the Economy to make sure that we did not take our focus off skills and universities, as could become the case. Perhaps there could be a junior Minister in the Department of Education looking at early years and early intervention and how we can really raise our game on that subject. Certainly, there should be one in the Department of Health specialising in social care and how we can deliver on that. I would also like to see, possibly, a junior Minister in the Department for Communities looking at some of the impacts of welfare reform on social mobility and what could be done there. This gives the sense of a broader set of reforms that I would like to see flowing from a Bill like this.

Once you start down the road of change, there are things that, naturally, should flow. Once you bring in junior Ministers to look at things such as social care or at rights and protections for our elder population, you start to question whether we need a Commissioner for Older People or a Commissioner for Children and Young People. Should those responsible not, in the idea of representative democracy, be under the control and scrutiny of this Chamber? That is what is interesting about the current reform, in moving to nine Departments and looking not only at how we get a functioning Executive and a robust Assembly and opposition holding that Executive to account but at how we build in purpose and direction and that challenge to political parties to come up with policies, costed ideas and an idea of what they want to do, what they want to get into a Programme for Government and what they want to do if elected to serve in the Government.

Being in the Government comes with huge privileges, but it must also demand huge responsibility when making decisions. This is something that we have not seen. Under our current model, we have no idea about what is government policy. The Health Minister is now in the Chamber: if he goes to make a decision under Transforming Your Care, how many other Ministers will protest against him? That is why, when you move to a smaller number of Departments and you have fewer parties in the Government, you will help to bring in a collective Government, a disciplined Government and government policy that makes sure that, when Ministers speak, they do so on behalf of the Government of Northern Ireland and not just on behalf of their Department. There would be no solo runs in Departments. That is where we have to move to, and I very much hope that that will be the direction of travel set out in the Bill. I do and will support the broad principles outlined today.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I call junior Minister Pengelly to conclude and wind up the debate.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order, I understood that my name was down to speak in the debate.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

Your name was down to speak on it, but you were not in for the previous speaker and are therefore ineligible to speak.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I explained my predicament to the Chair, but there we go. As you please.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Belfast South)

I am grateful for Members' contributions. They have been invaluable and informative, although some were disappointingly negative, given that this is a good news story and a good day for government in Northern Ireland.

Reforming institutional structures has been a declared objective of government here for many years, and reducing the number of Departments has long been recognised as a key element of reform. The Bill represents a major element in the process of reform. The issues addressed in the Bill featured in a Programme for Government commitment; they were the subject of a review and report by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee in 2012; they underwent detailed consideration during the political process leading to the Stormont House Agreement in December last year; they were extensively discussed by the Executive at the beginning of this year; and they featured in the recent talks process that led to last month's Fresh Start Agreement. It is therefore disappointing that some Members have taken issue with the speed with which we are trying to bring about this reform, given that it has been discussed so extensively over the last four years. I say to those Members that this is the time for action. It should be done, it should be done now and it should be done in advance of the new mandate in 2016.

There is a broad consensus on a nine-Department Executive as a viable model for our future Administration. The Bill creates a framework for the most extensive reorganisation of the departmental system since 1999. Although it is quite a compact Bill, its impact on future Administrations will be far-reaching. A streamlined nine-Department system will offer fresh opportunities for improving the way we do business. The future Departments will have a clearer identity that, in my view, will be appreciated by citizens. The new slimmed-down structure will enable related policies and functions to be brigaded together and synergies to be achieved. It will provide a leaner, more efficient Executive.

The changes will have consequences for the Assembly too. Having fewer Departments should simplify Assembly Committee structures and business scheduling. Together with wider public-sector reform initiatives, restructuring will lead to a more efficient Administration on many levels. That will help us to deliver the excellence in public service and value for money that the citizen rightly expects.

I will turn briefly to the various contributions and thank all those who contributed. First, Mr Lyttle outlined the role of the Committee thus far in this issue and in the Bill. We appreciate the Committee's support for our actions on accelerated passage and the reform of the Departments. Mr Lyttle welcomed that the Committee will get to scrutinise the transfer of functions Order. I am happy to put it on the record that we will appreciate the Committee's help in this in the next few months and its comments on and analysis of the proposals set before it.

I welcome the support of the Alliance Party on reform. I am fully supportive of driving forward better government and a better Assembly. That is why I have been very involved in the Department, as has junior Minister McCann, on driving forward better working across Departments, trying to break down silo mentalities and to get better cross-policy working. Delivering Social Change is one example of trying to get a delivery framework.

However, Mr Lyttle mentioned rubber-stamping. What I will say is that we exist within a legislative and Executive context that requires hard graft to bring about brokered agreements. That was picked up by a number of Members. As the Member is well aware, the formal procedures are not always conducive to getting those negotiations and agreements that are required to bring these matters forward. So, we have to look outside the formal structures, but, of course, we liaise and interface with those formal structures when required and when appropriate to get that type of feedback.

I will turn to the contribution made by Paul Frew, who welcomed that we have agreement. I absolutely and wholeheartedly concur: getting agreement across a mandatory coalition, especially one that is so ideologically opposed or which comes from such different ideological positions, is not easy. Yes, it is slow and difficult, but it is worth persevering and achieving those agreed actions.

There was negativity, and I will come to that shortly. Others will snipe, sneer and condescend from their utopian fantasy world of what should be instead of what is. What I would say is that we will try to achieve action and agreement within the context that we exist in while striving to make the necessary changes to improve the system, and I believe that today is a very important step towards improving the system.

Alex Maskey welcomed the fact that we are getting on with implementing the agreement on those actions, and I absolutely concur with that sentiment. I think that action is good, but it takes a long time, as I mentioned, to get agreement. I believe that it is right to use this process to ensure that that is in place for the next mandate and to give the next mandate the best possible opportunity to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.

I move on to the contribution from Alex Attwood. Again, there was a bit of negativity from him. He wanted to pour cold water on 'A Fresh Start'. What I would say to him is that, for many people, this is not a disappointment. Some elements will require further discussion, and we have made commitments to continue to discuss those very difficult and tricky issues. We got agreement on how to deal with welfare reform, on having in place 12·5% corporation tax by April 2018, and on comprehensively taking on cross-border crime and tackling paramilitarism. Those are big, big issues of agreement. They are intractable problems that people have struggled with for very many years. There is an agreement there and, while it may not have everything in it that we would hope for, it is a good agreement and a fresh start on a range of issues, and that should be welcomed, not received with such negativity. I believe that it is ambitious and comprehensive.

Mr Attwood raised the issue of the nine Departments and said that it is not a panacea or the answer to inefficiency or bad working. I absolutely agree. I do not think that anybody is suggesting that it is, but it is a good start. It is one of a range of necessary measures. My colleagues in other Departments, including the Department of Health and the Department of Finance and Personnel, are pushing forward an ambitious agenda for efficiency and reform, and we will continue to do that. We have made it absolutely clear that one of our key commitments is providing better public services for people in Northern Ireland, and that will require a change in how we do things and deliver services. We have made a commitment to drive through efficiencies and reform to bring about those changes.

The Member mentioned the issue of objective need that I had raised. To clarify for him, I am not necessarily saying that we should move away from objective need but, rather, that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about what objective need is. I know, from talking to very many groups, including those involved in the legal challenge, that there seems to be a sense that objective need is almost entirely to do with spatial deprivation. My comments were to try to make it absolutely clear that that is not the case. I mentioned objective need in the Department of Health — the objective medical expertise for your needs. As for unemployment, it does not matter where you live or what the spatial deprivation is, you will get your benefits and the help that you are entitled to. So, my point was more one of clarification about the understanding of objective need, not about actually changing that.

However, we need to step back and change some of what we do right across government. I do not think that anybody is suggesting today that the policy areas in Departments are crystallised and cannot or should not be changed. I have already mentioned the Delivering Social Change agenda, which was a new policy area to be pushed forward. I think that we need to look at the way that we have operated for very many years to see what is working and what is not working, and what is not working should be left behind. On previous occasions, I have mentioned the approach of Departments to strategies. We have started to take an approach of putting many strategies on a statutory basis.

I am firmly of the view, for example, that a huge strategy that collates a range of actions happening in Departments is not the way to bring about change. We need to have an outcomes focus and to look at delivery frameworks and a better way of doing business across policies, within Departments and between Departments and other agencies. Mr Andy Allen —

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

I thank the Minister for giving way. I think that I have proposed five interventions, all of which were meant to be positive and should in no way be portrayed as negative. May I probe you further? Hansard will confirm, Minister, that you have just said that you are:

"not necessarily moving away from objective need".

You subsequently said that you were "not actively changing objective need". Can you confirm what your position is? Given that you have said that you would not necessarily move away from objective need, are you saying to the House that there might be circumstances in which you might find it necessary to move away from it?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Belfast South)

There are a range of policies that any Department can implement, and you implement those policies on the basis of the problem that you are trying to resolve. There will be some problems with need, and, in that case, absolutely, there should be an objective-need approach. Section 28E of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 clearly states that there is a statutory obligation that a poverty strategy needs to be based on objective need. There are other strategies, of course, as you and your party will be well aware. For example, there is a statutory obligation in section 75(2) on good relations. There will be other policies and statutory requirements that mean that we will use a different range of criteria.

I will clarify my comments in that context. We have made it clear in the Chamber that we are committed to bringing forward a poverty strategy under section 28E based on objective need, and I seek to give better clarity on what "objective need" means. It is used colloquially to mean "spatial need", and that is a mistake.

Andy Allen said that this should have happened many, many years ago. The first thing that I will say back to the Member from the Ulster Unionist Party is that, given what happened last Christmas and given that the Ulster Unionist Party did not agree to 'A Fresh Start' or want to be part of that agreement, if it were left to that party, it still would not be done. It certainly would not be done in time for the Administration in the next mandate. I find it difficult to take criticism from a party that is not prepared to step up and make the difficult decisions, the compromises and the agreements that are required to move Northern Ireland forward and get those issues moving.

My colleague David McIlveen paid tribute to Pat Ramsey: I add my best wishes to that sentiment. I did not have much opportunity to know Mr Ramsey, except by reputation, or work with him. Warm words have been said, and it has been mentioned many times that he is a gentleman. Probably all of us around the House would like to have that type of tribute paid on leaving a political career, so I support David's comments on that.

David told a story in which he talked about a destination and asked this: where do we want to go? I absolutely concur with that sentiment. We need to have a vision. There are many visions contained in many strategies and many documents, but, for the Programme for Government, we will strive to have a clear vision of where we want to bring Northern Ireland. I have heard it said by all parties around the Chamber that we have a shared vision of wanting to build a better and brighter future for Northern Ireland. That means economic growth and reforming government, and today is a critical step in doing that.

I will clarify some of the Member's comments. He is not here at the moment, but hopefully he will read this in Hansard. Terms and conditions for staff will be largely unaffected. The only change that is possible may be a change of working location. There is a programme board being led by the permanent secretary in DEL, presumably under the guidance of the head of the Civil Service, and I know that the board has been liaising with the trade unions throughout the process. He mentioned the efficiency of arm's-length bodies. I can give him a confirmation that arm's-length bodies have not been immune from efficiencies over a number of years. We made it clear through the Department of Finance and Personnel that arm's-length bodies must be included in efficiency measures. They have made year-on-year efficiencies, but we will continue to look at how we can improve that relationship. There has been some rationalisation of arm's-length bodies, and we will continue to look at what is necessary. Where it is unnecessary, that should be merged and examined in terms of a better way of working.

Perhaps there was a little misunderstanding by Mr McCallister of whether the Fire and Rescue Service would be retained in the Health Department. I just wanted to clarify that. David McIlveen queried that as well. I can confirm that, and I know that that will be welcomed by the Fire Service and the health service.

I move to the negative contribution of Mr Roy Beggs, who, unfortunately, has not stayed to listen to the response to the many questions that he posed. He started by saying that it was "better late than never". I welcome the agreement. It was hard fought for, hard won and finally achieved, but, quite frankly, that was no thanks to him or his party.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for giving way. Mr Beggs was not able to answer my question but, in the Minister's view, it is not contradictory for the Ulster Unionist Party to oppose accelerated passage, which would allow the Bill to become law and make the progress that we want, while complaining that it has not taken place soon enough?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for the intervention. Absolutely, I concur. It is deeply ironic that they have opposed accelerated passage. If we want to have better government and a better Assembly, perhaps a good place to start would be our legislative process. Quite frankly, it is far from agile in getting these issues through, necessitating the fact that, to get changes in the last nine to 12 months of an Administration, we have to look at accelerated passage. Perhaps it is a challenge to the Assembly to look at how we can bring about changes and deliver for people in the last year of the Assembly term.

It is also deeply ironic that the Member's party walked away from the agreement. They walked away from the Assembly. He talked about smoke-filled rooms. That is probably testimony to the fact that the Ulster Unionist Party absolutely live in the past. It has been a considerable time since a smoking ban was put in place. There certainly were not any smoke-filled rooms in these discussions. He talked about 1998 and the Belfast Agreement being many decades ago. That was a long, long time ago, so they are going to wash their hands and take no responsibility for that whatever. That is an utterly ridiculous argument. He stands up there and says, "Better late than never" and "It is about time" and tries to pour scorn on the parties trying to bring about the changes, while his party created these Departments. The Ulster Unionist Party created those Departments and the burdensome system that we are now trying to deliver change on.

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

Will the Minister give way?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Belfast South)

I am trying to move business on. This has been a lengthy response, but I thank the Member for also standing up to take responsibility for the shocking example in relation to —

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The ugly scaffolding.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Belfast South)

Yes. The Member also asked what the Executive had delivered. I wanted him to be in the Chamber just, so that I could throw out a few headline statistics: 33% more spend on health; 22,000 jobs created; 12·5% corporation tax secured by April 2018, giving security to businesses that will attract further foreign direct investment and create further jobs for the people of Northern Ireland; no water rates; and the highest foreign direct investment per head of population. We have people sneering and condescending from the peripheries of the Chamber and the peripheries of the political parties in Northern Ireland, trying to pour negativity on what has been achieved. Yes, it has been hard and it has taken a long time, but we have got agreements and are changing things for the better. The Bill is representative of that.

I welcome John McCallister's contribution. He talked of a change of culture, and we can all support that. There is a saying that does the rounds at conferences or between officials that "Culture eats strategy".

The reality is that, unless we change the culture within Departments — the culture of working in silos and of inefficiency — we will not get better outcomes, regardless of how we change the structures. So, this is an important contribution in terms of the reductions, but we are also very conscious that we need to change the way people work. We have been trying to drive that forward, and it has been challenging. However, we need to get officials, bodies, Departments and, quite frankly, people across the Chamber working better outside the silo of where they are comfortable.

We need to be realistic. I take the points that Mr McCallister has raised about the systems that we have, but, if we were to hold out for all parties in the Executive to agree everything, we would have even less agreement and it would make it very difficult to move forward. We have striven to get agreement on a range of these issues. As I mentioned, these changes have been discussed for four years now. The changes in this piece of legislation are very straightforward. It is three clauses. Although some Members have expressed concern about wanting to sit and look at this even further, and add another six or 12 months to that process, it is three clauses, and they are very clear. It has been in the public space for the last four years, and now is the time for action and moving on that. I welcome that today.

In moving to some concluding paragraphs, I thank Members for their contributions to the debate and for the questions and issues that they have raised. I hope that I have answered comprehensively the issues raised. 'A Fresh Start' has provided a basis for addressing some of our most intractable issues. In relation to departmental restructuring, it has made it possible for us to move forward to an area that will benefit good government and society as a whole. A leaner, more joined-up Administration, with improved cohesion within and between Departments, is in all our interests. Most importantly, hopefully, it will help us to achieve our outcomes in a better way. I commend this Bill to the Assembly.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Departments Bill [NIA 70/11-16] be agreed.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [NIA 72/11-16] be agreed.

The Bill includes two distinct Parts. The original purpose of the Bill was to amend anomalies in the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2008. Those amendments are now contained in Part 2 of this Bill. Part 1 of the Bill contains provisions dealing with nicotine-containing products, the most common form of which are e-cigarettes.

I would first like to speak about Part 1. In the past four or five years, the market for e-cigarettes has grown considerably, and it is now estimated that there are almost three million users in the United Kingdom, the vast majority of whom are ex- or current smokers. A recent Northern Ireland health survey revealed that 14% of people here have tried e-cigarettes at least once and that around 5% of the adult population consider themselves to be current users.

E-cigarettes differ from regular cigarettes in that they contain no tobacco. They are made up of a nicotine-based liquid, which is then vaporised and inhaled. No smoke is produced, and, therefore, they can be legally used in places where tobacco-cigarette use is banned. As the e-cigarette market has expanded, concerns have arisen about the health consequences of using these products. A limited amount of research has been carried out, and Members may indeed be aware of a recent report commissioned by Public Health England that estimated that e-cigarettes are about 20 times less harmful than tobacco cigarettes. While this report offers some reassurance, the e-cigarette market remains largely unregulated. Consequently, the quality and safety of existing products on the market cannot be verified. I glad to say that the position on regulation is shortly to change. From May 2016, the new EU tobacco products directive will require that all nicotine-containing products, which contain less than 20 mg per millilitre of nicotine, are regulated as consumer products.

In practice, that means that e-cigarette manufacturers will be obliged to comply with a number of requirements if they wish to sell their products within the European Union. These include a limitation on the nicotine content of e-cigarettes; obligatory reporting of the ingredients of and emissions resulting from the use of e-cigarettes, including toxicological data; the provision of information to consumers, including a health warning on packaging; and restrictions on cross-border advertising and promotion.

Application to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) for medicines licensing is an option for those manufacturers wanting to promote their product as a smoking cessation aid or to sell products that contain more than 20 mg per millilitre of nicotine.

There are no age restrictions applied to the sale of e-cigarettes, and there is no requirement in the EU directive for member states to introduce any such restrictions. However, a 2014 report by the World Health Organization (WHO) considered the emerging evidence on the health risks associated with nicotine-containing products. It concluded that there is sufficient evidence to caution children and young people against using these products. Nicotine is a highly addictive substance, and adolescent nicotine exposure is known to have long-term adverse consequences on brain development. In addition, I am concerned that the availability and promotion of e-cigarettes is reversing the progress made by smoke-free legislation to de-normalise smoking.

Action to address concerns about youth access to e-cigarettes is at various stages of development across the United Kingdom and Ireland. A Government amendment was included in the England and Wales Children and Families Act 2014 to restrict the sale of nicotine-containing products to persons over the age of 18. These regulations came into force on 1 October this year. The Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc. and Care) Bill, introduced in Scotland in June, also seeks to ban underage sales of e-cigarettes, and the Republic of Ireland is committed to introducing similar measures in the near future.

It is important that young people in Northern Ireland are similarly protected. To that end, my Department sought and obtained the agreement of the Northern Ireland Executive for the inclusion of relevant provisions in the Bill. Part 1 contains provisions that will enable the Department to make regulations prohibiting the sale of nicotine-containing products to minors. A provision to allow the Department to create an offence of the proxy purchasing of these products — in other words, an adult purchasing an e-cigarette on behalf of a minor — is also included.

It is not intended that the legislation will apply to licensed nicotine replacement therapy products currently on the market as aids to smoking cessation. To exempt existing nicotine replacement therapy products, the regulation-making powers will allow the Department to apply the age of sale restrictions either to all nicotine products, nicotine products of a specified kind or nicotine products subject to specified exceptions.

Schedule 1 amends the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 to allow for offences in relation to the underage sale of nicotine-containing products to be included as an offence that could lead to an application for a restricted sale order or a restricted premises order. This is one of three offences that could result in a retailer being banned from selling tobacco and/or nicotine-containing products for up to three years, so in practice it will mean that, if a retailer commits an underage sales offence in relation to a nicotine-containing product, an enforcement officer could include a ban.

Two small amendments were made to Part 1 of the Bill following the consultation process. The first provides my Department with regulation-making powers in relation to banning the sale of e-cigarettes from vending machines. While there is no evidence of that happening at this stage, I believe that it is important that we have measures in place to prevent such an eventuality.

The second amendment raises the level of fine for sales of tobacco from vending machines to a level 5 fine. That ensures a consistent approach to fines for all underage tobacco or e-cigarette sales offences. I believe that the provisions in Part 1 offer a proportionate response to concerns about youth access to e-cigarettes. This is a new and evolving market. My Department will continue to review the latest developments and research with a view to ensuring the best outcomes for the health of our population.

Before I move on to Part 2, I want to address an issue that is not in the Bill but that many believe should be. Many were understandably concerned at the omission from the Bill of a clause banning smoking in cars with children. I have listened carefully to the arguments made by many that Northern Ireland should follow the example of other parts of the United Kingdom, and I can confirm to the House today that it is my intention to bring forward an amendment at Consideration Stage to ban smoking in cars with children.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

I would like now to address Part 2 of the Bill. As already mentioned, the original purpose of the Bill was to amend anomalies in the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2008, which I shall refer to as the 2008 Act. The 2008 Act amended existing legislation covering the provision of health service dental, ophthalmic and pharmaceutical services in Northern Ireland. It also amended provisions concerning charges for services provided to persons not ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland.

The amendments that we now need to make to the 2008 Act are mainly technical in nature and do not affect the original policy intent. We have already consulted on the amendments, and respondents were content. Mainly, they will ensure that the legislation contains the correct references to the various categories of people and bodies involved in providing dental, ophthalmic and pharmaceutical services. I will now briefly describe the background to the amendments.

The 2008 Act contains the legislation to change the way dental services are organised in Northern Ireland. The provisions move away from the current arrangements whereby only dental practitioners can provide health service treatment. In the new provisions primary dental services are often referred to as the new dental contract. Once introduced, a wider variety of providers will be able to provide dental services, including corporate bodies. Certain anomalies have been identified in the dental provisions in the 2008 Act, and the Department needs to amend particular wording in legislative references. Specifically, we need to amend the description of the dentists who will perform those services. The amendments are technical in nature, and the original policy is unaffected. The relevant amendments are set out in clauses 6, 9 and 10 respectively.

The Health and Social Care Board, which is referred to as the "Regional Board" in the Bill, maintains lists of individuals or bodies that provide pharmaceutical services — that is, dispense health service prescriptions and related services. The Health and Social Care Board also holds lists of those who provide ophthalmic services — in other words, those who carry out health service eyesight tests. There are set application procedures before an individual or body can join either of those lists. Those listed have to abide by certain terms and conditions, the Health and Social Care Board has disciplinary powers over them, and, ultimately, they can be suspended or disqualified by a tribunal. Lists are limited to those who hold contractual arrangements with the Health and Social Care Board; they do not include employed pharmacists or opticians.

The 2008 Act aimed at extending the current listing system to include pharmacists and opticians employed by contractors. Again, anomalies were identified in the 2008 Act, and we have decided that we need to revisit our policy in that area. That will be conducted in a separate exercise and will be subject to further consultation. In the meantime, the Bill returns the general ophthalmic and pharmaceutical services provisions to their pre-2008 Act position. Relevant amendments are set out in clauses 7 and 8.

Under existing legislation, the Department can make health services available to persons not ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland. The Department may determine charges for such services and prescribe exemptions from those charges. In rewording that provision, the 2008 Act removed the phrase

"subject to such exemptions as may be prescribed".

To avoid any ambiguity and for clarity, the Department wishes to make the minor amendment of restoring those words. Currently, the exemption is implied. Those amendments are set out in clause 11.

The provisions in Part 2 amend anomalies identified in the 2008 Act. The amendments are technical in nature and will ensure that we have the correct legislative references in place when we are ready to introduce the new dental contract. We have restored the Health and Social Care Board's ophthalmic and pharmaceutical listing powers to their pre-2008 position. We will consider the extension of ophthalmic and pharmaceutical listing systems in a separate exercise, and, for clarity, we have restored a specific reference to exemptions in relation to charging persons not ordinarily resident. The Bill also makes important changes to the regulation of e-cigarettes and will, if the Assembly supports my amendment, ban smoking in cars with children.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

Before I call the Chair of the Committee, Ms Maeve McLaughlin, I advise her that, as Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, it may be necessary to interrupt her at that stage.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. On behalf of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, I support the Second Stage of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.

The Minister has outlined that the Bill is split into three parts. Part 1 contains provisions to enable the Department to make regulations prohibiting the sale of nicotine-containing products to minors. A provision to allow the Department to create an offence of proxy purchasing is also included. Part 2 makes provision to amend the 2008 Act in respect of areas such as primary dental services, pharmaceutical services and charges for services provided to persons not ordinarily resident. Part 3 makes provision in respect of the interpretation of the Bill, subordinate legislation and repeals and sets out the title and commencement dates.

The Committee first took evidence from departmental officials on the proposals for the legislation on 1 October 2014. That was during the Department’s public consultation on the draft Bill. Back then, officials advised that it was the Department's intention to introduce the Bill in the Assembly by February 2015. It was, however, introduced late last month. On 23 September 2015, officials came before the Committee again to provide a further briefing on the Bill and to update us on the changes that had been made to it following the public consultation.

Two changes were made to the draft Bill after consultation. The first was the inclusion of the ban on e-cigarettes from vending machines, and the second was the increase in the fine for sales from tobacco vending machines to a level 5 fine. During the briefing, the Committee asked questions on the detail of the Bill, but no objections were raised about its overall aims and objectives. Questions asked sought clarification on the difference between nicotine replacement therapy and nicotine-containing products and whether the legislation would apply to licensed nicotine cessation products. The possibility of a ban on domestic advertising of e-cigarettes was also raised. Members also sought clarification on the Department's rationale for the technical amendments to the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008 on the listing of dentists, pharmacists and opticians.

If I may, in conclusion, I wish to say a few words as a Sinn Féin MLA. In a strange outburst of cooperation today, I had planned to announce my intention to table an amendment to ban smoking in cars carrying children. I very much welcome the Minister's intention to do that and look forward to working directly with him in that spirit of cooperation to bring forward a robust, comprehensive ban that is ultimately about the public health of our children and young people.

Finally, if I may, I indicate my intention to table an amendment on a sugar tax, thus ensuring that the Department will consult on a levy on sugar-sweetened drinks. They are a major source of ill health, particularly among our children and young people, causing conditions such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and tooth decay. The consumption of sugary drinks is higher among young people and those on low incomes. My amendment will deal with the issue of a levy on sugar. I urge Members to support the Second Stage of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, so I suggest that the House take its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member called to speak will be Mr Alex Easton.

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

Oral Answers to Questions — Health, Social Services and Public Safety

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

1. Mrs Overend asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to outline how the total level of funding awarded to date in 2015-16 to address pressures in the health service compares to the level allocated in 2014-15. (AQO 9290/11-16)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

In overall terms, the total level of current expenditure funding awarded to my Department in 2015-16 is some £123 million greater than that available in 2014-15. That increase takes account of the uplift that was outlined in the Executive's Budget for 2015-16 and the additional non-recurrent in-year allocations made to my Department through the monitoring round process.

The Executive's Budget for 2015-16 provided an additional £200 million for front-line health services, but my Department was also required to make some £50 million in savings in other areas of its budget, including the Fire Service and my other arm's-length bodies. In addition, the level of assistance available to my Department in 2015-16 through the monitoring round process is approximately £30 million less than that received in 2014-15.

I welcome the Executive's past support in providing additional funding to my Department, and I will look to their continued support in the future so that my Department is best placed to meet the health and social care needs of the people of Northern Ireland.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for that information. Obviously, I welcome the recent allocation of £40 million, but, as the Minister rightly said, there was far more money awarded last year, yet the situation continued to worsen. Aside from temporary reprieves, what has he done to get to grips with the escalating costs?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I think that everybody understands and appreciates — I am sure that the Member does — the increasing pressure on health in our society and across most societies, with huge increases in demand for most services. Some of that demand is driven by positive things like technological advances and advances in drugs and medicine. That puts increasing pressure on a system that is facing pressure all the time, which is why I have been focusing on the need to reform our system. It is very clear to me that continuing with the system as it currently operates will not suffice in the future.

We are starting to see the pressures build up. We understand the problems that are being caused by having a growing and ageing population. Great that it is that we are all living longer, many of us are living longer with one or more chronic conditions. Earlier, in a different context, the Chair of the Health Committee was talking about unhealthy lifestyles and the ticking time bomb that that presents for society. That necessitates reform of our system.

In the short term, we need to spend more in health, in part to address the immediate needs and to start to reform and transform our system. We have to be realistic that that increase, particularly at a time of pressure on our budget, is not sustainable in the very long term. So, we need to make those reforms and transformations to get our health service on a sustainable footing. We need to make reforms that take out layers of bureaucracy in our system and ensure that we have a configuration of services, in health and in social care, that meets the needs of our population and puts to the forefront the need to ensure the highest standard of care and safety for our patients. It will be that relentless focus on reform that I will continue to pursue, and I hope that whoever is in my post after the election will continue to do that.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

What scope does the Minister see for efficiency savings in his Department? What level of savings has he been able to achieve up to this point?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I very much welcome the additional resources that were granted to my Department by me when I was in the Department of Finance and Personnel. Whilst many at the time argued that that was not enough, including the Health Minister of the time — I understood and appreciated that it was not enough to meet all the demand that the Department and health service faced — it was in the context of a very difficult Budget and was a significant boost, vote of confidence and reflection of the support across the political spectrum and wider society for health.

That £123 million of additional resources would not have been enough in itself to tackle the rising demand as best we could. That is why the Department continued with its pursuit of efficiency savings in this financial year. That is something that we have been doing vigorously over this Assembly term. Between 2011 and the end of this financial year, we are set to release £825 million, nearly £1 billion, in efficiency savings from the system. That compares very favourably to what was achieved between 2007 and 2011, which Members will recall was a very different time for our public finances. Only £426 million in efficiency savings was released between 2007 and 2011. Since the beginning of this Assembly term in 2011, nearly double the amount has been released in efficiency savings by my party, the Member's party and our colleagues who have been in office. That money has been able to go into the front line to help relieve some of the pressures that our hospitals and social care sector face.

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

At his annual conference, the Minister pledged an extra £1 billion in Health spending over the next five years. Could the Minister detail where this money will come from? Has he had discussions on that with his Executive colleagues?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

What I pledged, and was very pleased to be able to pledge, was that my party would seek to increase expenditure on Health and Social Care by £1 billion over the next Assembly term. It is my view that that is a financial boost that is required not only to meet the well-publicised pressures that the Department and the system face in the short term but, in the longer term, to get our Health and Social Care service onto a sustainable footing by investing considerable amounts in reform, transformation and innovation within that system. That is something that I am pledged to do. It is something that I have discussed with the party, particularly the Finance Minister, who supports it, understanding the challenge that it presents.

It was as much a challenge to other parties, including the Member's party, to support that needed boost in expenditure for Health and Social Care over the next five years to transform the system and relieve the pressures that it faces. It will be up to others to support that. It is obviously a matter for the Finance Minister given the constraints that she faces in crafting a Budget for next year. I will certainly do my best. I will fight hard for the much-needed, substantial uplift in expenditure on Health and Social Care, because I believe that it is needed, but I understand and fully appreciate the constraints that the Finance Minister faces. Some of those constraints will, of course, be the views of other parties and whether or not they support it. I have heard different comments and responses from various parties, including some in the Chamber who have opposed it outright. I have not heard the Member say whether he supports a £1 billion uplift in Health spending or not. If he does not, I would ask him to explain why he does not and to set out why, given all the complaining that he and his party do about Health, he does not believe that it needs that substantial increase in funding.

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

I point out to Members that question 3 has been withdrawn.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

2. Mr Humphrey asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for an update on emergency department services at the Mater Hospital. (AQO 9291/11-16)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Mater Hospital has a proud and enduring heritage of providing high-quality services to the people of north Belfast and beyond. I pay tribute to the hospital's staff for their dedication and service to the local community. I fully understand that any change to hospital services causes concern to the local community and their representatives. I reassure Members that the action taken by the Belfast Trust in respect of emergency department services at the Mater was a temporary change made as a precautionary measure in response to concerns expressed by senior medical staff about staffing levels in the hospital's emergency department.

The Belfast Trust took the decision on 13 November to temporarily suspend ambulance arrivals from 6.00 pm to 8.00 am and to redirect children arriving at the emergency department to the nearby Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children, which has a dedicated paediatric emergency department. The emergency department has remained open on a 24/7 basis throughout, and the ambulance divert was lifted on Thursday 26 November. However, the temporary redirection of paediatric patients under 14 years of age to the children's hospital is continuing. The Belfast Trust is monitoring that temporary arrangement.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I also thank the Minister for the meeting that he facilitated last week between party colleagues and me and trustees from the Mater Hospital.

As a supplementary question, can I ask the Minister how many people have attended the accident and emergency unit in the Mater over the last number of years?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his comments. Very quickly after the issue arose in the Mater Hospital, Member of Parliament Nigel Dodds contacted my office to facilitate a meeting and discussion that, I am glad to say, the Member and colleagues from the North Belfast constituency, as well as people from the Mater Hospital, were able to attend. I was glad that we were able to do that, because it allowed me to offer, I hope, some reassurance about the future of the Mater Hospital, which I am sure the Member and colleagues will communicate to the community in north Belfast.

The question that he asks about attendances at the emergency department in the Mater highlights how important it is in the overall Belfast Trust picture, particularly for emergency services. In 2010-11, there were 41,405 attendances, and in the last full year, 2014-15, the number rose to 45,623. In every year in between it rose, so it has been growing and growing over that period. It is clearly a key part. Notwithstanding the issues around the temporary nature of the divert and around paediatrics, it has an important role to play in the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust in providing emergency department services. My understanding, having spoken to officials, is that, even with the investment in the Royal Victoria Hospital and the new emergency department there, that hospital could not cope logistically with the numbers coming into it. Notwithstanding those issues — we always have to put patient safety to the fore — the Mater and its emergency department have an important role to play in the Belfast Trust area.

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

Thanks to the Minister for his answers thus far. Minister, you talked about patients being redirected from the Mater to the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children. However, last week we heard that the latter is experiencing pressures that have resulted in cancelled operations. What assurances can you give to the people whose operations were cancelled that they will receive their treatment in a timely manner?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I am aware of the issue that the Member raises about operations for sick children in the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children. My understanding is that that has been due to a spike in seasonal bronchiolitis — I am learning a new language in this job — and that all children's wards in Northern Ireland have experienced an increased number in admissions for that condition. I understand too that that is not something that is particular to Northern Ireland; there is a national increase in the number of young children presenting with bronchiolitis. Obviously, in situations where beds in hospitals are full or close to being full, whether it is for paediatrics or any other area of specialism, it is important that we ensure that there is safety for patients and that the quality of care remains high.

In those exceptional circumstances, it is only right that the clinicians and trusts take the judgement to cancel non-emergency surgery. It is clearly not something that we want to see, and it is not something that we want to see happening frequently, but, in the circumstances, we understand the pressure that was put on the hospital. It is only right that they did what they did. Clearly, we want to see those surgeries slotted back in as quickly as possible so that people are not inconvenienced any further.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

Does the Minister accept that the four-hour waiting target has been set only after sound medical advice and that for some people the longer they are forced to wait, the more harm they come to? Is the Minister satisfied that patients' safety is not being compromised as a result of the pressures not only in the Mater but in all our hospitals?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

On the first point, I accept that the target has been set on the basis of clinical advice. Equally, I think we should be open with not only that target but with any targets. If the evidence coming from our clinicians is that the targets are not serving a useful purpose, we should be open to changing them. In conversations that I have had with various royal colleges, some clinicians have questioned the efficacy of some of the targets that we work towards and measurements that we take. So, on the best advice that is there and the figures that we have, I am very open to looking at targets from time to time.

I think that we all understand the pressures that emergency departments are under, in particular. We have talked about them in respect of a range of hospitals over the last number of Question Times when I have been in the House. We know the issues with recruitment, particularly of consultants for emergency departments. Clearly, as we enter into the period of the year — winter — when pressures become even more acute in emergency departments, we understand the difficulties that can arise at this time of year. That is why I met the chief executives of all the trusts yesterday afternoon to discuss their preparedness for the winter, which I suppose we are already at the start of, and I had detailed discussions with them about what they were doing in their areas to address any pressures that are arising or may arise. We talked about the additional £4 million that the November monitoring round has allowed to be released to deal with emergency department pressures or winter pressures. I also informed them that we would give them greater flexibility to spend that money. In the spirit of the reforms that I announced some weeks ago, I do not want to see trusts having to come to the Department to seek permission to do things that will benefit patient safety and quality of care in the short term.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

4. Mr Dunne asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety when the consultation on the proposed closure of the Health and Social Care Board will commence. (AQO 9293/11-16)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

On 4 November, I outlined wide-ranging, ambitious and radical plans for transforming the health and social care system. The proposed changes seek to reduce bureaucracy. As well as the Department taking firmer strategic control of our health and social care system, I want to make our trusts responsible for the planning of care in their areas and to give them the operational independence to deliver it. I therefore propose that we close down the Health and Social Care Board. Departmental officials are drafting a consultation document that seeks views on those changes. I aim to bring forward that consultation as soon as I can to gather views. I have been encouraged by the positive response to my proposals from other politicians, health and care professionals and from members of the public.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his answers. I think that we all welcome his decision to progress towards dissolving the Health and Social Care Board and the projected savings that will flow from that. Can he see potential for change before the legislation is put in place?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Member welcomes the changes that I have proposed. He and I have spoken about this in the past, and I think that we agree that there has been a clear need for reform in the health and social care system with regard to administration, bureaucracy and taking out bureaucracy that is not required. That is why there has been the broad support that I have spoken about from other political parties and, importantly, from clinicians and others in the public. In coming to my decision and the announcement that I made on 4 November, I listened to what others were saying, and I think that that is why there has been the consensus that there has been.

There has been a conflation of two issues in the speech that I made on 4 November: one is the panel that will look at the best configuration of services and how long it might take to implement, and the other is dismantling the Health and Social Care Board and taking out that bureaucracy and that barrier to innovation. I made some comments at the Committee about taking probably 18 months to do that with regard to the board. That is a reflection of what I believe to be the realistic timetable that it will take to get the legislation in place, bearing it in mind that there is an election coming up that will stunt things for a while. Officials have been working assiduously on producing a consultation document. I hope to approve that shortly and launch it quickly thereafter to start the important process of consultation that will inform the drafting of legislation that, I hope, will be in place for early introduction in this place in the new mandate.

There is work that can be done in the intervening period. We are doing some scoping work to see whether there are changes that could be made that do not require legislation to give effect to the changes that I have proposed. I have met the chairperson and the chief executive of the Health and Social Care Board, and I am glad that they are working with my Department and me to make that a reality.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí. I thank the Minister for his answers. Can he outline how roles in the Health and Social Care Board will be divided up?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Since making my speech on 4 November, I have been at pains to stress that this is not about the staff but about the system in which they work. There are a lot of good staff right across the system, including in the board, who are doing very important and critical work to make our health and social care system work. Clearly, we are not going to do away with the functions and roles that those staff perform. I envisage staff going in various different directions. Some will come into the Department. Some will go to the trusts, particularly those who are involved in planning for need in particular areas. Some may move to the Public Health Agency, which, as I have said, I want to see working much closer alongside the Department and renewing its focus on the important work that it does.

Part of the scoping exercise that we are doing will identify the best place in which to put staff in order to do various things. There are some obvious ones, such as planning for need, whose staff we can see moving to trusts, but there are others who will be best placed back in the Department. The important point to stress is that this is about reforming and transforming the system in which our excellent staff work so that we can get the best out of their talents. The additional layer of bureaucracy in the current system, which is causing so many difficulties in getting innovation on to the ground, needs to be taken away so that we can give our staff, who work incredibly hard, the best system possible in which to operate. We will all be the better for that, because that will produce better results and better outcomes for us all.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

The Minister will know that up to 600 people or thereabouts are employed in the board at present. Following on from the earlier question, those are people who have been there for a number of years doing a good job. Will he assure the House that there will be no redundancies, and will he advise us on what sorts of savings are expected to come about as a result of the abolition of the board?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I do not envisage there being any compulsory redundancies. That is not to say that there will not be a need to get rid of some posts, but that will not be as a result of a compulsory redundancy process. It is worth emphasising the point again, given that he has raised it, that this is about getting an appropriate system in place for our staff to work in so that we can get the best from them. I do not believe that the current system is getting the best out of our staff, and the talents, skills and abilities that are there are not being optimised in a system that has far too many layers for a very small region such as ours.

What was the second question?

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

It was about savings.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

This is not being done with savings in mind. That is not one of the criteria that I want to see as a result of the reform. It is about reforming and transforming the system and giving our staff the best system possible in which to do their work. I envisage that some savings will be made. The budget for the board is currently around £30 million, so even a 10% saving will release £3 million. Whether it is £3 million, £2 million or £1 million of savings, I can assure the Member and the House that those will be redeployed into the front line to ensure better care for our citizens.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The public could not understand why so many high-powered and highly paid individuals were employed in the Department and the Health and Social Care Board, so I welcome the review that is happening. Does the Minister have a target for savings that will come out of the review, as well as other organisational advantages, and does he accept that the board employs far too many people and that it grew far too large over the past number of years?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

It is wrong to start off with Health and Social Care reforms of this nature on the basis of saving money. If we can save money — I expect that we will — that is an advantage and something additional that we should welcome. However, to reiterate the points that I made to the two Members who asked questions previously, the whole purpose of this is to create a system that gets the best out of the staff who operate in Health and Social Care across Northern Ireland. As a result of the reforms that were taken forward by the Member's colleague Mr McGimpsey when he was Minister, I do not think those staff have been given a system that maximises their talents, skills and abilities.

I accept the point that he made about the size of the board growing. Since its inception in 2010, it has increased by around 160 members of staff. Interestingly, when Mr McGimpsey gave an interview recently to the 'Belfast Telegraph', he said that he wanted the board to be a lean organisation. Mr McGimpsey said:

"I said there should be a maximum of 250 staff, but after a lot of crying and wailing that they couldn't do it with that number of people, I allowed it to go to 350."

Actually, he did not allow it to go to 350. In 2010, which was during Mr McGimpsey's tenure, it started off at 436 members of staff, considerably north of 350 and a lot higher than the 250 that he envisaged. I presume that the people whom he was talking about, crying and wailing, were civil servants, who he told me at the Committee could not run the health service. It is pretty clear that they could wrap him around their little finger and get him to do whatever they wanted, because he nearly doubled what he wanted to start off with in the board. It is interesting to point out that, over the same period, the number of staff in the Department decreased from 670 to 446, so down 224. That is considerably more than the number of staff by which the board has increased.

Claire Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

5. Ms Hanna asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety when he will make a final decision in relation to the proposed changes to junior doctors' contracts. (AQO 9294/11-16)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I recently made a statement indicating that I have no desire to impose a contract on junior doctors in training but that my preferred way forward is through negotiation. I welcome the outcome from the ACAS discussions between the Department of Health and the BMA and that all parties are willing to explore how best to deliver together on a new junior doctors' contract. I see this as a great opportunity, and I am optimistic that these discussions will lead to an agreed way forward. I therefore think that it would be pertinent to await the outcome of these exploratory talks before making a considered decision for Northern Ireland.

Claire Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I think that you will understand the frustrations of ordinary junior doctors, particularly given the swifter resolution of this issue in Scotland and Wales. You will be aware that, as well as their safety concerns, junior doctors are worried about the impact that this issue will have on recruitment. In light of George Osborne's autumn statement and the announcement on nursing bursaries and the potential loss of that subvention for student nurses, can you outline what plans your Department has to address that issue and prevent it from exacerbating an already acute nursing shortage?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

There are two issues, which I will try to deal with in the time available to me. On the issue of junior doctors' contracts, as I said, I welcome the fact that both sides — the Department of Health/NHS employers and the junior doctors' side — are now engaged in discussions within a short, limited time period. That is what I wanted to see from the start and I think that that is the most likely way to reach the conclusion that I want to see, which is an agreed contract for the whole of the United Kingdom. The Member said that there had been a "swifter resolution" in Scotland and Wales. I do not accept the terminology that it was a swifter resolution. Scotland and Wales took a particular decision not to impose a contract. I did not take that decision because I wanted to encourage both sides to go back into negotiations. It may form a resolution from some people's perspective, but I do not consider it to be a satisfactory resolution of a situation that would ensure that a contract that has been agreed by all sides previously as being not fit for purpose remains in place. That is why I want to see a negotiated settlement around this issue, and I encourage all sides to negotiate.

I am aware of the announcement that was made in the Chancellor's autumn statement on nursing bursaries. The Member will be aware that that does not impact on Northern Ireland because of devolution. When I entered the Department back in May, some work had been done by officials in looking at the issue of nursing bursaries and also at nursing fees, which, in most circumstances, I think, are paid for by the Department. That is not a route that I wanted to go down, and I stopped that from heading down that direction. Hopefully, that gives some assurance to nurses. However, I do think that there are issues particularly around the retention of nurses after they qualify, and I am keen to look at that. There are changes that perhaps we can make that I am sure everyone can agree with. If we are investing in fees, in bursaries, in nurses and in nursing students, I think that we want to see the benefit of that investment in the health service here in Northern Ireland. That is something that I am keen to look at.

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

I am afraid that that ends the period for listed questions. We now move to topical questions.

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

T1. Mr McKinney asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, in light of his attendance yesterday at the funeral in Belfast of Mr Brian Withers who died as a result of oesophageal cancer — while it was a sad event, it was also a celebration of his life and, in particular, his tenacity in fighting for drugs to help to extend his life, with him gaining six years — what assurances he can give to people who are stricken with cancer and other illnesses that they will not have to have a lonely and stressful journey in attempting to access drugs and that drugs will be available on an equitable basis. (AQT 3261/11-16)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for raising the issue. I did not know Mr Withers, whom he mentioned, but I am sure that the Member will pass on my sympathies and condolences to his family. The Member may be aware that, today, I announced my conclusions, views and recommendations in respect of the consultation on the individual funding request. I have agreed to proceed with three of the recommendations. I have agreed to remove 95% exceptionality, which, I think, everybody in the consultation agreed was far too restrictive. I have also agreed to establish a regional scrutiny committee, which will have a much fairer, more consistent and more clinically led approach to the issue of access to specialist drugs. I am going to start work on revising guidance on individual funding requests. Whilst that will not help in the case that the Member raised or, indeed, some others, I hope that the Member, the House and those outside will recognise that this is positive progress in improving access to specialist drugs in Northern Ireland.

I have not agreed to move forward on the creation of a specialist drugs fund or the introduction of prescription charges because of a lack of political agreement around that issue. However, the lifting of the 95% exceptionality and the creation of the regional scrutiny committee will, I believe, substantially increase access to specialist drugs for cancer patients and others.

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

Clearly, people are dying while they wait. Can the Minister assure the House that, given the many millions of pounds that have become available under the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme (PPRS), appropriate moneys will accompany any new system?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Member and I have discussed the PPRS before. While I do acknowledge that we get money back in as a result of it, much of that is used annually to cover the increasing cost of drugs elsewhere in the system. So, we are not quids in or sitting with a lot of additional cash as a result of that; it is merely covering some of the costs that are there. The Member is mouthing the figure of 40 million quid — £40 million, rather; I should not use unparliamentary language such as "quid" — but it is not over and above the increasing cost of drugs right across the system.

I hope that the Member recognises, as I am sure most people will, that what I have announced today will substantially increase access to specialist drugs for people, who will have clinically-led decisions. One of the reasons why I did not go down the route of a specialist fund was that I did not want to put a particular figure on it. I wanted to have clinically led decisions, made through the regional scrutiny committees, as to what was appropriate need.

I am disappointed that we have not been able to reach agreement on the reintroduction of modest prescription charges, and, therefore, this additional cost will have to be covered from elsewhere in the Health and Social Care budget, and that all, of course, puts some pressure on a budget that is already considerably challenged. However, for the reasons that the Member has outlined, which I appreciate, and I am sure others do too, I think that it is the right thing to do.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

T2. Mr Swann asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for an update on the findings and outworkings of the pulse oximetry trial in Daisy Hill Hospital in conjunction with the Southern Health Trust, and, as Chair of the all-party group on congenital heart disease and the father of a child with congenital heart disease, to accept his congratulations and thanks for its introduction. (AQT 3262/11-16)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I have become aware of the trial only recently. We all realise and acknowledge that innovation will solve many of the problems in our health and social care system that we have been talking about. It comes, sometimes, at considerable cost. That is why we are not always able to bring innovations and changes through the system as quickly as we would like. Sometimes bureaucracy gets in the way of that too. I am aware of the trial that the Member is talking about. I have to say that I am not fully apprised of it and, therefore, do not want to say too much about it at this stage. In fact, I was discussing it with colleagues in recent days, and I am keen to look into it a bit more. I will certainly do that, and I will update the Member with our views on how it is going and the impact it might have.

I know that the Member has a particular interest in this issue, and he is absolutely right to continue to push for improvements in the service for young children who have heart defects and problems and to ensure that it improves on an ongoing basis. That is something that I am committed to. I met the Children's Heartbeat Trust recently, and we discussed some of the issues that children and service users are facing. I am certainly committed to doing my best to take the service forward to ensure that the excellent service in Belfast continues and that we put the all-island network in place as quickly as possible.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that answer. In reply to a question for written answer from me, your predecessors said that they were going to wait for the results of the UK trial, which are not due until next September. Can I ask this: what changed the Minister's mindset? The big concern was the number of false positives that come from that. Has the Minister put in mechanisms for parents, children and clinicians not just in Daisy Hill but in the Clark clinic to support them given the number of false positives that may come forward?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I am aware that the National Screening Committee (NSC), from which our Administration and, indeed, others across the UK take guidance on issues like this, has been running its own pilot. It is due to report next year, and I will look at that evidence as well. The reason why I said that I will come back to the Member is that I am aware of what is happening at Daisy Hill through the Southern Trust. That is a different trial to the one that the National Screening Committee is doing. I do not think that we should dismiss it because it is not the same, but I am certainly keen to examine it a lot more closely to see how it relates to what the National Screening Committee is doing and to ensure that we learn all possible lessons from it, including those issues that the Member talked about, so that we can iron out any problems and wrinkles there might be.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

T3. Mr Flanagan asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety whether he is aware of the widespread public anger at the Western Health and Social Care Trust’s proposals to close popular and effective day centres in Rosslea, Gortin and Dromore and to downgrade centres in Belcoo, Garrison and Teemore, resulting in a recent consultation proving to be a farce, with well over 1,000 people opposing the changes and the trust seeming intent on moving ahead anyway; and whether he is aware of the failure of the Western Trust to listen to the views of local people and representatives. (AQT 3263/11-16)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I am aware of the issues that the Member raises, not least because party colleagues as much as anybody have raised them with me. I think the Member will understand the pressures that the Western Trust is facing with its budget and in the redesign of services that people are facing. Sometimes some changes can be seen entirely through the prism of making budgetary savings in difficult circumstances. Very often, what gets forgotten is that some services will change to provide better outcomes for people. In that sense, we all need to look at these with an open mind sometimes. That does not mean that we should be supporting them willy-nilly or just because the trusts are coming forward with them.

Certainly, I am aware of the concerns that are there. Obviously, decisions of this nature will have to be made by the trust and then be approved by the board before they come before me. At this stage, they have not arrived on my desk.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. He is right. These are being presented as budgetary savings, but once you factor in the knock-on increases in transportation costs across Fermanagh, and, indeed, parts of Tyrone, you find that it does not actually make financial sense. Would the Minister be willing to accept a delegation from the local community to discuss these proposed changes once the information arrives on his desk so that we can discuss this with all the information at hand?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I will consider any and all of these sorts of decisions where there are changes to services. I fully understand, as the Member articulated, the concerns they can raise within local communities, particularly when the possible benefit of a change has not been articulated as clearly as we would like. This is why I think it is incredibly important that trusts, when making changes to services, present local representatives or the local community with the benefit that a change will make. Clearly, in circumstances where that is not obvious, you would meet the sort of opposition that the Member is talking about. I will approach any and all of these sorts of decisions that arrive on my desk by carefully considering all the evidence presented to me, and I will seek other evidence as appropriate. If that requires me to meet people from the area to discuss their concerns, I would be content to do that.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

T4. Mr G Kelly asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to confirm that the recently announced proposed closures of residential homes run by the Four Seasons group are to do with accrued debt held by the business in England rather than financial viability here. (AQT 3264/11-16)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I think the Member's analysis is close to being spot on. There have been some who have, no doubt for political reasons, sought to blame the Department of Health for not giving sufficient money to the Four Seasons business to keep it going, through the tariff or whatever, as the reason for its failure — or, indeed, issues about the recruitment of nurses. The fact is that we have a substantial business that still provides a lot of much needed care in Northern Ireland, but its extensive, well-publicised debts, requiring over 10% of its money in interest payments, have put considerable pressure on the business. The announcement on Friday past that two of the homes are to be sold to other private-sector operators in the Northern Ireland market somewhat undermines the argument put forward by some that this was entirely about a failure on my or my Department's part to give enough money to those operators. I am not for one second suggesting that there are not challenges facing that sector with the national living wage or the recruitment of appropriate staff, but the fact that other operators have been prepared so quickly to step in to take over those businesses — I appreciate that they are still going through their various processes — suggests that there is a profit to be made, contrary to what has been argued by some others.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his answer. Following on from some of the information that he gave us, does he have a view or is there any notion that, outside the Four Seasons group, there might be others at risk? Are there any checks that can be done on that? He will be aware that there is nervousness about the homes.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I appreciate the concerns that remain about the operator that has been mentioned. I have no intelligence to suggest that there are others in a similar position. Of course, that is not to say that there are not pressures being faced by other operators; I understand that. When I listen to representatives of the independent sector, they articulate the pressures that they face and express concerns about future viability. Because of that and because of the uncertainty, I did a couple of things in the immediate aftermath of the Four Seasons announcement. I halted and called for a review of the closure of statutory residential care homes because of the volatility in the marketplace. To get a better picture of what is going on in the independent sector, I commissioned work to look at the market, what capacity there is in it and the pressures that it faces, to give us a better independent view of what is happening in adult social care and nursing homes so that we are better informed in the decisions that we make, rather than jumping to what somebody says we should do over here or over there. We will take evidence-based decisions with a full and complete understanding of what is happening in the social-care market.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

T5. Mr Buchanan asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what role nurses can play in the transformation of the health service that he wishes to see. (AQT 3265/11-16)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The very first event that I attended when I became Minister was at the Ulster Hospital around nurses, and one of the first formal events that I attended thereafter was the Nurse of the Year awards. At both, I pointed out that I view nurses not just as one of the cornerstones of the health and social care system but as pivotal to implementing the reform that I think we all know we need across health and social care.

One of the things that I recall clearly from the Nurse of the Year awards was that all the nominees and all the recipients of awards were receiving those awards and the acknowledgement of their peers because of changes and reforms that they had initiated across the system. Sometimes, I think that we do not view nurses as being innovators in that sense, but the ability, the skill and the capacity that they have to implement change and to bring forward new ideas are truly impressive. I see them as critical to implementing the reforms that we need across our system.

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

I am afraid that there is no time for a supplementary question. Time is up, and we must move on.

Oral Answers to Questions — Justice

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

1. Mr Ó hOisín asked the Minister of Justice when he will provide the Coroners Service with investigative support. (AQO 9305/11-16)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The failure of the latest political agreement to come to a position on legacy mechanisms and to provide significant additional resources makes progress on legacy inquests more difficult. I very much appreciate the disappointment that that will cause victims.

My objective is to deliver as much as I can for families. Consequently, I have agreed to the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service launching a recruitment scheme with a view to appointing investigative support for the Coroners Service. The scheme was launched yesterday, and I expect appointments to be made by spring of next year. The cost of appointing such investigators will result in a further unfunded legacy pressure on my Department.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree with me that the current inquest process is not providing access to a sufficiently effective investigation with an acceptable timeline?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Ó hOisín's point has a number of factors to it. There are certainly problems at the moment with resourcing the Coroners Service. Another issue is that a number of legacy inquests involve matters that require clarification from the police or the Ministry of Defence, particularly where national security issues are engaged. I am determined to put the maximum possible resources into the Coroners Service. Good work has been done in that area by strengthening the complement of coroners, by assigning judges from higher court tiers to deal with coroners' cases. Until we resolve the fundamental issue of the necessary resourcing, however, we will not have all being done as fast as we would wish.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

In view of the fact that the Kingsmills families and the sole survivor, Mr Alan Black, have waited almost 40 years for the reopening of the coroner's inquest into the cruel murder of their loved ones, can the Minister assure the House that the timeline now being indicated by the Coroners Service will be adhered to? Will he join me in expressing hope that the matter can and will be addressed after such a very long period?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Kennedy for his question. I can certainly join him in hoping that the matter will be resolved speedily. I am aware that, in the case of the Kingsmills inquest, a preliminary hearing has recently been held and a further one is due to be held before Christmas time. If matters can be arranged at that preliminary hearing, the intention is to proceed to a full hearing during the first half of 2016. It is interesting that it is one of the cases now being looked after by Judge Sherrard, one of the higher court tier judges who has been moved across to assist the Coroners Service. That is an example of the resources being put in by DOJ that are currently unfunded but that, I hope, will produce results for the families concerned.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí. Can the Minister inform the House whether there is a realistic chance of the 56 outstanding legacy inquests being completed within a reasonable period or at all?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Like Mr Ó hOisín, Mr McGlone has put a number of questions in one point. I suspect that a number of Members will be aware that the Lord Chief Justice, having assumed the presidency of the Coroners' Courts, in line with an Assembly decision when the Bill became an Act late last year, has instructed one of the senior judges to review all 56 outstanding cases. That is likely to lead to a hearing on each of them by Lord Justice Weir in January. That will then establish the position for all those cases with regard to which ones are in a position to move forward speedily and which may take longer or create difficulties. There are difficulties around disclosure matters, as Members will know, and those are causing delays in a number of cases. I hope that it will be possible to see a number progress. I am determined that we will put the resources in, if resources can be made available. At this stage, however, I do not have all the funding that is required to do all that I wish.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I congratulate the Minister on moving the process forward on the appointment of Coroners Service investigators.

Are those appointments at the expense of other aspects of the justice system or will you be able to avail yourself of additional funds to follow through on those appointments and to support the cost of those appointments into the future?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

At the moment, those posts are being funded from within the DOJ budget, though they are clearly related to legacy issues. Members will recall that, a year ago, there was a promise from the Prime Minister of funding to deal with legacy matters. At this stage, we have not seen the additional funding that we need. Therefore, it is a risk to the Department of Justice. Nonetheless, I am determined to see that we will make progress in the inquest system and, therefore, funding from the Department's current limited budget is being put into dealing with the past.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

2. Mrs Dobson asked the Minister of Justice how the allocation of £160 million additional funding for the next five years through 'A Fresh Start' compares to the allocation for the previous five years. (AQO 9306/11-16)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The £160 million additional funding provided by the Treasury for the next five years is to support the PSNI in addressing the continuing "severe" national security threat as well as to provide greater capability to tackle continued paramilitary activity and criminality. That amount is based on an assessment by the PSNI of its requirements over the next five years; that is, from 2016-17 to 2020-2021. During the four-year Budget period 2011-15, additional security funding of £199·5 million was made available to the PSNI by the UK Government. That was fully used by the PSNI, except for £5 million in 2012-13, when easements of that amount in other areas were redirected to security funding. In the current year, a total of £31 million of additional security funding has been made available to the PSNI by the UK Government. That will be fully utilised by 31 March 2016.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his answer. What steps does the Minister plan to take in allocating resources to ensure that the situation in Maghaberry prison is addressed and that staffing levels are increased to ensure that prison officers regain control?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am used to inventive supplementary questions but I am not quite sure what the relevance of that supplementary is to the question that was asked in the first place. However, I have to respond to the last point that Mrs Dobson made. There is not an issue with prison officers regaining control of Maghaberry prison. It is controlled by the governor and the staff, and not by anybody else.