Northern Ireland Assembly, 22 February 2016

476 contributions from 66 members. The official report.

Executive Committee Business

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I wish to inform the House that the Public Services Ombudsman Bill received Royal Assent on Friday 19 February 2016. It will be known as the Public Services Ombudsman Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, c. 4.

Assembly Business

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I want to take this opportunity to remind Members to speak into the microphones when they have the Floor, otherwise their comments may not all be picked up by Hansard as accurately as they wish.

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

I beg to move

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 22 February 2016.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

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

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

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 22 February 2016.

Ministerial Statement

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement to update Members on the announcement last week by Bombardier about its global restructuring.

I wish to take this opportunity to express my deep regret at last week's announcement by Bombardier Inc that it is planning to reduce its workforce in Northern Ireland. The impact of that decision will be hard felt in Northern Ireland, particularly by those who are personally affected. First and foremost, my thoughts are with the workers and their families as they continue to absorb the news.

Bombardier took the decision to rationalise its workforce across all its sites to ensure its viability for the future.

While the news was deeply disappointing, Bombardier Inc made it clear that the decision was taken to safeguard the company's long-term future globally and here in Northern Ireland. I want to take this opportunity to assure the House that I am already working with my colleague the Minister for Employment and Learning to do all that is possible to limit the impact of the redundancies that will take place during the coming weeks and months. Bombardier has reaffirmed its commitment to the CSeries programme and to Northern Ireland's critical role in its delivery.

While we try to absorb the news of significant job losses, it is important to note that Air Canada has signed a letter of intent for up to 75 CS300 aircraft. I view that as a positive development for the CSeries project as a whole, particularly as the wings for the aircraft are designed, developed and manufactured here in Northern Ireland. The CSeries CS100 aircraft received Transport Canada certification in December 2015, which was a significant milestone in the programme's transition into service. I look forward to the CSeries entering service with Lufthansa Swiss as planned by the middle of this year.

The Government at Westminster, and the Northern Ireland Executive, primarily through Invest Northern Ireland, work closely with Bombardier here in Belfast and at its corporate headquarters in Montreal to ensure that the company's Northern Ireland operations are fully recognised in the strategic contribution that the company makes to UK aerospace. I have met senior and top management of Bombardier on five occasions since taking up the post of Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and I intend to continue that contact.

Since the privatisation of Short Bros plc by the UK Government in 1989, Bombardier has invested £2·6 billion in its six sites in and around greater Belfast: in facilities, equipment, research and development; and in the training and development of its workforce. That is a formidable achievement that we must not overlook. It is indicative of the high-value nature of this important industrial sector.

Over the years, my Department, through Invest Northern Ireland and its predecessor agencies, supported Bombardier as it transformed its Northern Ireland operations through a strategic programme of investment aimed at maximising the company’s capabilities and competitiveness. That equipped it to win major work packages for Bombardier's own aircraft families and for third-party customers, including Rolls-Royce and Airbus. Between 2002 and 2015, Invest Northern Ireland offered £75 million worth of assistance to Bombardier, including £21 million for the CSeries, in support of investment commitments totalling £844·5 million. While Bombardier said that there was nothing we could do to reverse last week's decision, we will continue to work closely with the company and explore other ways to support its drive for greater efficiencies.

It is important to recognise the cyclical nature of the aerospace sector worldwide and the peaks and troughs experienced by all major companies operating in that sector — Bombardier is not unique. It is true to say that Bombardier is experiencing challenges, but it is necessary for it to take action now to address those on a global basis to secure the company's long-term future. Northern Ireland is affected by the restructuring decisions announced last week, but other locations have been hit particularly hard as well, especially Canada and Germany.

I wish to take this opportunity to say something about the importance of Northern Ireland aerospace as a whole and the contribution that our vibrant aerospace cluster already makes to the local economy and the global aerospace sector. Northern Ireland is a global leader in aerospace technology. We have a dynamic, rapidly growing international aerospace industry founded on a strong engineering heritage and rich in knowledge, skills and experience. Major aerospace corporations depend on Northern Ireland's reliable supply chain to provide quality, high-value-added products and services cost-effectively and on time using excellent logistical services.

In addition to Bombardier, on which my focus is today, Northern Ireland firms are working to support major international companies including Airbus, Boeing, Embraer, BAE Systems, Spirit Aerosystems and GKN Aerospace. We have a strong presence in the aerospace cluster involving over 60 companies, and Invest Northern Ireland has been working closely with this supply base to enhance its competitiveness and support its continued growth.

In recent months, Invest Northern Ireland has brought delegations from Boeing and Airbus and their top-tier suppliers to Northern Ireland to see the advanced aerospace design and manufacturing capabilities that have been built up over many years. I must pay strong tribute to Bombardier for the major part that it has played in the development of this supply chain that is now able to offer expertise in key technologies including precision machining, composites design, manufacturing advanced metal forming, seating and interiors, and design and stress, along with tooling design and manufacturing.

There is an ongoing programme of investment by Northern Ireland aerospace companies in technology, people and R&D to support expanding production rates in many of the world's aerospace programmes. Invest Northern Ireland has been leading a programme of improvement through the 21st century supply chain initiative in conjunction with the industry association, ADS UK, and is strongly supported by Bombardier Aerospace and B/E Aerospace in Kilkeel to drive improvements in on-time delivery and quality. These are crucial to success in this high-value sector of the manufacturing economy. This programme has already delivered significant improvements in turnover and profitability in the aerospace sector, which, in turn, are helping to create additional jobs in Northern Ireland. This initiative is also helping to reduce the dependence of the participating companies on Bombardier, as a number are successfully diversifying their sales base into other key customers worldwide. The strategy for Northern Ireland aerospace launched by my distinguished predecessor, Arlene Foster, in 2014 is already delivering benefits in internationalising the Northern Ireland aerospace brand, and I shall continue to support the implementation of this strategy in every possible way.

Shortly after taking up the post of Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment last year, I led a group of Northern Ireland companies to the Paris Air Show. I am pleased to say that an even larger group plans to exhibit at the Farnborough International Air Show in July this year. Such was the interest and enthusiasm that has been shown for Farnborough by our companies that Invest Northern Ireland is significantly increasing the size of its stand this year; I find that greatly encouraging. In April, Invest Northern Ireland will be taking a group of companies to the Aerospace and Defence Supplier Summit in Seattle, USA. I feel strongly encouraged by the enthusiasm with which Northern Ireland aerospace companies are embracing these opportunities. This is further evidence of the ambition and confidence with which our aerospace companies are seeking to take their expertise to the four corners of the world.

My focus so far has been on the immediate challenge of the Bombardier job losses. Working with Minister Farry to soften the blow as much as we can, we will continue to work with the company to secure its future and to help those affected to find new jobs. We must now also look beyond that immediate challenge to the future of the manufacturing industry and the overall economy. The job losses at Bombardier, along with those at Michelin and JTI, are serious blows, but we must be neither despondent nor complacent. In the midst of these recent devastating redundancies, it is important to remember that the total number of jobs in manufacturing continues to grow. Recently, total numbers employed in manufacturing passed 80,000 for the first time in a number of years. We can and we must build upon that base.

I want to see flourishing manufacturing companies at the heart of our growing economy, with Northern Ireland supplying the world with everything from complex aircraft structures to portable defibrillators and quarrying machinery, to name but three. As I visit companies across Northern Ireland, I meet inspiring, brilliant people in every sector. I have witnessed at first hand a wealth of entrepreneurial flair and talent working with first-class research and development capacity in our universities.

Our job in the Executive is to create the right environment for that talent to take root and to flourish. It starts with having the right strategy in place. Work is under way in my Department on a major refresh of the Executive's economic strategy. I have tasked my officials with putting manufacturing at the centre of that new strategy, as one of its major themes. Those will not be just warm words. I want to see a real focus on the role of manufacturing as the bedrock of our economy. In that strategy, there will be three key themes to support manufacturing: tax, talent and competitiveness.

First, on tax, the lowering of the rate of corporation tax to 12·5% from April 2018 will be a game changer. Members are familiar with the headline figures: in excess of 30,000 additional jobs; an economy that is nearly 10% larger; and an up to 5% improvement in productivity. Lower corporation tax will not merely grow our economy — it will transform it. Northern Ireland's corporation tax regime will enable our indigenous companies to grow and will bring new forms of foreign direct investment. We already have a well-earned reputation for attracting major back-office and support functions, and we can now look forward to attracting, and retaining, major profit centres. Those profits will in turn drive investment in research, development and innovation, leading to more and better jobs.

Secondly, on talent, we will place a real focus on skills. New jobs in manufacturing and other sectors will depend on having a supply of people with the right skills ready to take up the opportunities. Building that supply chain of skills will be at the core of the new Department for the Economy, working closely with colleagues in schools, further education colleges and universities.

Thirdly, on competitiveness, we must create the right policy environment to ensure that our manufacturing is competitive. For example, the challenge of energy costs is already well recognised. We know that energy costs have fallen in recent years and are at a six-year low, but that means that they are at a six-year low for all our competitors as well. Other countries focus their energy policies on growing the economy and supporting business: we must do the same. That is why I established the energy and manufacturing advisory group, on which we have brought together expertise from manufacturing, energy and academia to generate new ideas on the way forward. The group's work is progressing well, and I look forward to receiving its report in the coming weeks.

The broader policy environment also needs to change, with every part of the public sector sharing the responsibility for growing the economy. With the support of my Executive colleagues, my Department is leading on a programme of deregulation, cutting red tape and reducing the burden on business. The aim, quite simply, will be to make the entire public sector much more business-friendly.

In conclusion, I and my Executive colleagues will do everything that we can for the people who are directly affected by the job losses, and we will continue to support Bombardier — I will stand shoulder to shoulder with Michael Ryan and the men and women on the shop floor in Belfast — to secure its future. Beyond that, the economic strategy will reflect our unshakeable belief in the future of manufacturing in Northern Ireland, which will continue to be the centrepiece of our economy and the envy of the world.

I commend the statement to the Assembly.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Thank you very much, Minister. Before I call for the first question, I advise the House that the statement has attracted a very high level of interest and many Members have put their names down to ask a question. I am sure that Members will agree that as many as possible should be given the opportunity to ask their question. For that reason, I ask Members to ensure that their question — and I emphasise "question" in the singular — is as brief as possible and relates to the ministerial statement.

Having said all that, I call Mr Patsy McGlone, the Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment. I will give the Chairperson the usual latitude in making some comments.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as an ráiteas sin. Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. I will not need latitude; all I want is some answers with a degree of precision.

I note that the Minister stated that he had met the management of Bombardier on five separate occasions. I also noted, with some interest, that he — that is the Department — will:

"continue to work closely with the company and explore other ways to support its drive for greater efficiencies."

Perhaps he would care to explain what he means by "greater efficiencies". For the rest of us who have listened to this bad news, efficiency usually equals further cutbacks. I would not like to think that that was indeed the case.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. As he outlined, I met representatives of the company on five separate occasions. I met them twice in Montreal, most recently with Mr Bellemare. In all those meetings, the critical nature of what we wanted to do was to ensure that the Belfast plant is a key part of Bombardier going forward.

We know that Belfast is critical to Bombardier. Indeed, many of the discussions centred on how Bombardier cannot see a future without the Belfast plant. We have the research and development, the patents, the skills and brilliant manufacturing workers. Indeed, 90% of Bombardier's manufacturing staff are accredited, and it is probably a world leader in accreditation.

We know that, in the future, we have to be competitive and efficient. The honourable Member is wrong when he asserts that, when a company becomes efficient and cost-competitive, it always reduces its staff. History would tend to argue against that. We want to see Bombardier in a position where it can win not only orders for the CSeries but other orders.

Michael Ryan and I had a very positive and constructive meeting with many of the trade unions this morning. We are agreed on the critical nature of manufacturing in Belfast and how we take that forward. In the future world economy, cost-competitiveness will be key for Northern Ireland to ensure that we have the jobs in Belfast. I am determined to see those jobs in Belfast.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his very comprehensive statement. What plans does his Department have to look at areas such as retraining for the unfortunate people who will lose their jobs?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I spent most of the last 72 hours working with the Minister for Employment and Learning. I want to put on record my deep thanks to Minister Farry, who has been available pretty much 24/7 as we worked together to first absorb the news and then channel our energy into seeing what we can do for the workers affected.

We know that 580 jobs will go by Christmas 2016, and we also know of the announcement of up to 500 jobs going by 2017. I understand that about 380 of those jobs are with a recruitment agency and are part of the complementary labour force. Together with Minister Farry's Department — effectively the two Departments are amalgamated in driving forward support for the workers — we are looking to ensure that the other manufacturing work that we believe to be out there can be introduced to those in the complementary labour force, who are in the most immediate position of losing their jobs.

Secondly, to answer Mr Douglas, I know that many members of the workforce are in the East Belfast constituency, and, as he knows I grew up beside the factory.

We know that there are up to 3,500 jobs coming forward in manufacturing. We want to ensure that, of the 200 who will lose their job in this period, we can seek, where we can, to have those people re-skilled. In many cases that will mean getting accreditation for the skills they already have and programmes of retraining. I am informed by the industry experts that over 90% of the workforce in Bombardier are accredited skilled engineers, and part of our job is to see how we can put them in the best position to attract the new manufacturing jobs that are coming forward.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his full statement.

First of all, we should emphasise and echo your statement of standing with the workers and management of Bombardier in this city today. All of us from all parties will, despite our differences, do our best in the days ahead to boost the fortunes of Bombardier. In that respect, I will travel to New York later this week to meet the New York City Comptroller, who owns millions of dollars of stock.

Minister, you have said that, as the manufacturing sector grows, you might try to pivot or move some of the workers who are being made redundant into some of those jobs. Can I ask you also to look at the apprentice schemes? I am particularly concerned about the plant at Newtownabbey and the plants at Dunmurry. It is important that some of the other engineering companies take up some of the slack from Bombardier, because those are highly prized and valued apprentice schemes.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I am pleased to do that. Anybody who knows either Stephen or myself knows how deeply we value apprenticeships and how we see them into the future. I understand from the company that it will be suspending the scheme, not ending it. It is a suspension of new apprenticeships. All apprentices in the current scheme will have their full apprenticeship programme honoured. I look forward to a time when we can see that suspension lifted and apprenticeships going forward. Minister Farry and I agree completely that apprenticeships are the way forward.

I also thank the Member for the work that he is doing in the United States. He shared some of that with me on both a private and a commercial basis. I am encouraged by it, because right around the world they are looking for us to stand shoulder to shoulder to protect these jobs. This was a global initiative that Bombardier took. In the UK we took 17% of the pain, Canada took somewhere in the region of 50% of the pain and Germany took a higher degree of pain than we did. I will work with everyone in the House, whatever they have said in the past, if they can bring forward fresh ideas about how we can attract new markets and ensure that manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland is best placed to take advantage of the new opportunities that are emerging.

Adrian Cochrane-Watson (UUP, South Antrim)

Minister, there are some issues in your statement that I very much welcome. First, I highlight the priorities set by Manufacturing NI: the cost of energy, which you have addressed, and the manufacturing strategy being at the heart of the economic strategy moving forward in the new Programme for Government. That is very welcome.

I have two questions for you, Minister. Following on from the previous question on the apprenticeship programme, I used to accredit the apprenticeship programme for Bombardier at both Interpoint and Queens Island, and I strongly urge you, if there is any influence on Michael Ryan and senior management, to re-establish that programme. Do not let it drop because, in three or four years, when, hopefully, economic conditions will be a lot better, these young people will come out of these programmes highly qualified and highly skilled —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Thank you.

Adrian Cochrane-Watson (UUP, South Antrim)

I am passionate about that. Could you do that, Minister? Secondly, the question, Minister —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

It is one question.

Adrian Cochrane-Watson (UUP, South Antrim)

— when setting industrial rates —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

When I make an announcement, I mean it: one question. Minister, if you get multiple questions, I would much appreciate it if you could answer just one so that I can get as many in as possible.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

OK. Well, you have heard what I am going to do on energy with the manufacturing group and you have heard the answer that I gave to Máirtín Ó Muilleoir, who raised the question of apprenticeships. I have been speaking with the unions this morning, and we will do all that we can on that. As we take our manufacturing industry forward, be assured, Mr Cochrane-Watson, that putting apprenticeships and young people at its core will be a key priority for me and Minister Farry.

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

Adrian Cochrane-Watson (UUP, South Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

There are no points of order until the end of a Minister's statement.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I, too, express my sincere regret at the Bombardier announcement as someone with a close relative who has given 40 years' proud service to the company. As someone who has experience of the impact of this type of redundancy, I will make myself fully available to assist any workers affected by this devastating news. What, specifically, will the Minister and the Alliance Minister for Employment and Learning be able to do to ensure that workers have access to redundancy advice and retraining so that they can get alternative employment in the wider manufacturing sector?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I grew up in east Belfast — my father had a church there — alongside people in families who, for generations, earned their livelihood in manufacturing. I believe that, into the future, Northern Ireland will have a bright aircraft manufacturing industry. It is worth about £1·1 billion and employs somewhere in the region of 8,500 people in Northern Ireland. I want to see that grow to 12,000 people, and I want to see that £1·1 billion value to our economy grow to £2 billion by 2024. Specifically, all the resources of DEL are being put behind the workers through careers advice, reskilling and retraining and into how we can ensure that the complementary labour force, where there are other manufacturing areas that need skilled workers, can see people married to those positions. Into the future, as we build the SC21 supply chain, we will look to see how those workers can be reskilled and retrained to take advantage of those opportunities. Let us not forget that every major aircraft corporation in the world is accepting manufacturing from Belfast and Northern Ireland.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement today. I think we are all concerned about the loss of the engineering jobs. Coming from the neighbouring constituency of North Down, we recognise the excellent employer that Bombardier is. Will the Minister indicate what financial support has been given to Bombardier and what involvement there has been by Invest NI in trying to secure the future of Bombardier?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I share the Member's concern. I represent Strangford, another neighbouring constituency with a plant, and we are all desperate to ensure that we retain as many jobs as we can. Part of the success that Mr Dunne refers to is down to Michael Ryan and the chairman, Mr Brundle, and I pay tribute to both of them. I talked with the unions this morning and with people from the shop floor in Bombardier late into Friday night, and what they told me is that they share my confidence in Michael Ryan and the team there. We will stand shoulder to shoulder with them as we go forward.

Over a 13-year period, you will see that the investment has been some £75 million. That has triggered £844·5 million of investment in Bombardier. If you take the work specifically on the CSeries that Invest Northern Ireland and UK BIS have done — my last engagement with Alain Bellemare, which was with Lord Maude, the then Trade and Industry Minister, when we went together to present a united front for the jobs in Belfast — you will see that there has been about £135 million in investment in the CSeries. We should not dismiss the fact that Bombardier itself placed £520 million into the company. That is the largest single investment ever made in Northern Ireland, and it is something that we deeply respect.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his statement and his answers so far. I share the regret and sadness of other Members at this devastating news for those who will be made redundant at Bombardier. Indeed, I took the opportunity to speak to a senior official from Unite the Union on Saturday.

Can I ask the Minister for his assessment of the effect that the reduction in corporation tax will have on helping manufacturing in Northern Ireland?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

As I said before — this will not be applicable in every sector, but it is applicable in many sectors across Northern Ireland — I do not see a reduction in corporation tax as something that will improve the economy; I see it as something that will transform it. I take the message of Manufacturing Northern Ireland around the world, and I make this commitment: I will go anywhere in the globe where I can attract jobs in manufacturing to Northern Ireland. We have a key message that is not only about corporation tax, as the Member says: we are running at about 84% to 85% of the business costs of the rest of the United Kingdom and about 95% of the business costs of the Republic of Ireland. Add to that the talent of our people. I have major companies employing well over 2,000 people in Northern Ireland saying to me, "Jonathan, we came for your costs; we stayed for your people". Then we add the third unique offering: after 1 April 2018, we will have the most competitive rate of corporation tax in western Europe. That three-pronged strategy is a winning prize that I believe will deliver results, not least the independent advice that I get from the Economic Policy Centre at Ulster University that we can grow our economy by up to 10%.

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

I think, given the scale of the job losses, that it is incumbent on all of us to reflect on the individual and collective impact on the workers, and I do that today. It is our job as Assembly Members to critique the Minister and his Department. Anyone who has criticised the Executive's economic policy in the past has been rebuked —

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I ask the Member to come to his question.

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

I am coming to it now, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker — has been rebuked, I believe wrongly, in the past, but is the Minister's announcement today of a new manufacturing strategy in the dying days of the mandate not simply an acknowledgement of failure to date?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I think that the Member does not understand the current position of manufacturing. I am in a difficult position, and I shared this with the trade unions this morning. I speak to the industry and to Manufacturing Northern Ireland, and the Member should be aware that the manufacturing strategy is part of our economic strategy for Northern Ireland. If he had listened appropriately when I said that I would give it a renewed focus and a central place, he would have known that I am doing so because the manufacturing industry tells me that it thrives on confidence. It has asked me, as Minister, to do everything that I can to promote confidence. However, if I do not talk about crisis and disasters and tsunamis and all the other hyperbole, I do not give the manufacturing industry confidence, and then I get accused of complacency.

I believe in Northern Ireland manufacturing, and the reason is that we have turned a point this year where we have more than 80,000 manufacturing jobs. We have not been there since 2008, and, if the Member would care to reflect on the HMRC figures, he will be aware that manufacturing in Northern Ireland is growing at a faster rate than that in any other part of the United Kingdom. I look at some of my critical friends, like Stephen Kelly at Manufacturing Northern Ireland, who has refreshingly told the media that manufacturing is growing in Northern Ireland; I look back at two Programmes for Government; and I see 18,000 manufacturing jobs and £3 billion invested in manufacturing in Northern Ireland. That is why I will stand shoulder to shoulder and give confidence to the manufacturing industry and, as part of a refreshed economic strategy, give manufacturing its place. I believe in Bombardier, and I believe in manufacturing in Northern Ireland. We can go into the future and grow jobs in this sector of our economy.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement. It is encouraging that both he and the DEL Minister are doing everything to support those affected by the devastating news. Will he tell the House whether he shares the confidence of the Invest NI chief executive that there will be no further job losses?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I can tell the Member that, between Alastair Hamilton and me, we will do everything — I mean "everything" — that is humanly possible to ensure that there are no further manufacturing job losses in Northern Ireland. No Member can ever say that, in this industry, we can guarantee no job losses. All Members understand that, as do the public.

The chief executive was referring to the specific situation in Bombardier, and I place this on record: we are very fortunate to have the skills of the men and women in Invest Northern Ireland for what they have done for our aerospace manufacturing sector. Why do I say that? It is their skills and the manufacturing base in Northern Ireland that have taken some 60-plus of our Northern Ireland companies to a position where they contribute £1·1 billion to our economy. Under the distinguished work that my predecessor Arlene Foster took forward with Invest Northern Ireland, they took all our companies and looked at the whole supply chain. The world needs tens of thousands of new aircraft. We looked at SC21 over the last number of years, with a long-term focus, for what we could do to ensure that our companies in Northern Ireland are best placed on that supply chain. The position today is that there are companies dependent on Bombardier to a huge degree, but there are also companies that have diversified so successfully under the work of Invest Northern Ireland that they are in a position in which more than three quarters of their work does not include Bombardier work. That is a huge success for aircraft manufacturing in Northern Ireland. We supply every major aerospace sector on the globe from our supply chain in Northern Ireland. I see that growing into the future and am determined to drive it from a £1·1 billion industry to a £2 billion industry by 2024.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Northern Ireland has undoubtedly been buffeted by global decisions taken by international companies, and, in the global market in which we operate, we will always be susceptible to that. I encourage the Minister to keep sustaining and building those relationships and developing new ones across the globe. Will he outline how, particularly through a reduction in energy costs, we can help not only to sustain our indigenous manufacturing companies but to attract foreign direct investment?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

We have to go to every corner of the globe, and I go inspired by a man whom I never had the privilege to meet. I have read the missive that he set out for us, which was that we should not let anyone tell us that Northern Ireland cannot compete against the best in the world and win. He did it not once with his company but twice, when he bought that company back. Sir Allen McClay's message is to the front of my mind when we go to global markets with Invest Northern Ireland. We will continue to go to them because, in every part of those global markets in the aerospace sector, we are attracting jobs and investment to Northern Ireland through the long-term strategic approach that we took with SC21.

We know that energy is a factor. Some people have wrongly made it out to be the number one factor in why we have lost jobs. Companies have said that that is not the case. We know, however, that it is an issue, and we want the manufacturing and energy advisory group to look at the short, medium and long term for what we can do to reduce those energy costs and make us as competitive as possible to the emerging new world markets.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. He is aware that the news that the good people of east Belfast had to come to terms with last week is something that my constituents in North Antrim have had to face up to on at least three occasions recently, with the closure of Patton's and the announcements by JTI and Michelin. In that context, will he advise the House what support Invest NI has given to the wider manufacturing sector in recent days?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

In relation to some of the areas that the Member has mentioned, we know that over 18,000 manufacturing jobs have been created over the last two Programmes for Government and that, as we stand — I will not go into individual companies — there are some 3,500 manufacturing jobs coming on stream in Northern Ireland.

What particularly concerned me about the Member's area was that many who had joined those companies and built up their skills base had never been formally accredited. What we have done in those areas through Northern Regional College is, where necessary, put short courses in place to allow people to have their skills accredited immediately or after a short period of training.

We will, through Invest Northern Ireland and DEL's Careers Service, provide them with hours of individual work with careers and skills advisers, who will also inform them where new jobs in manufacturing are coming. I have been working with companies, particularly Michelin, on an individual amount for each person to see what we can do for them because, at the end of the day, every job is individual. The question is what we can do for the individual. In many cases, companies like Michelin have been saying, "Jonathan, if there is a programme of training that will help the individual worker and it goes a little bit over that time, we will, as long as it is not excessive, look positively at that." It is about skills support and careers advice so that those men and women are best placed, with a competent CV and the necessary accreditation, to take advantage of the 3,500-plus new jobs in manufacturing.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Of course, we are all devastated by the loss of so many skilled jobs. I welcome the Minister's commitment to work with others, including Dr Stephen Farry, the Minister for Employment and Learning. It just shows that we can work together in this place for the good of all our community. The second of the three key themes was talent. What extra measures can be taken to place a real — "real" being the important word — focus on skills to move us forward?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member. I paid tribute to Stephen earlier. He and I have been synonymous with what the two Departments can do to help the workers. To all intents and purposes, we are nearly amalgamated already, in that we have both put our shoulder to the wheel.

The thing that I found most valuable was talking to workers in Bombardier just after the announcement was made. I was in the boardroom for the announcement, but I talked to many workers on the shop floor and after their shifts, including in their homes in Newtownards, until about 8.30 pm on Friday. They deeply appreciate that we did not get involved in party politicking or any nonsense. Instead, we reacted immediately to put all the resources of our Departments and the Northern Ireland Assembly behind the workforce.

I believe that, particularly with the complementary labour force, there will be key new areas with alternative manufacturing options. I further believe that, with the skills support that DEL has given, coupled with the investment advice and the intelligence of Invest Northern Ireland on where new manufacturing markets will open, many of those who have unfortunately lost their jobs on this occasion will be able to find new work in manufacturing.

I am not sure that Minister Farry and I have an open door; it is more of a revolving door between our Departments to ensure, first, that those who lose their jobs are in a position to take advantage of what comes on stream and, secondly — Mr Farry, has an ambitious skills agenda, which I want to encourage, and I know that he gained some additional money through his work with the then Finance Minister — to look constantly at our skills barometer to ensure that we have what we need now and, through the comprehensive work that Invest NI is doing, particularly in light of corporation tax, the skills sets ready for new jobs as they emerge.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Last year, the Minister visited my constituency and saw the work that some people were doing in supplying Bombardier. Can the Minister inform the House what effect this announcement will have on the aerospace supply chain in Northern Ireland?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I took the opportunity to visit specific projects with Mr Lyons. I was pleased to see young people, particularly those who are hard to reach, being able to get into the market. In his constituency, through to North Antrim and others, I have looked at projects that have particularly tried to help young people who are out of work and have problems with alcohol and other forms of chemical dependency to re-enter the market. We have sought to get all our companies in the supply chain to diversify. What we are reaping today are the benefits of years of work that Arlene Foster put in when she was in this job to ensure that eggs were not placed in one basket. Invest Northern Ireland worked with every major company around the globe to see where, with the UK SC21 supply chain, they could take best advantage of the expertise and excellence of manufacturing in Northern Ireland.

These are early days to assess the specific effects of the Bombardier announcement for the supply chain. Remember that, on the back of this announcement, we also had the hugely significant announcement from Air Canada that it intends to purchase 75 CS300 aircraft. There will be difficulties with Bombardier but, as we supply right across the entire supply chain, we have ensured that many of our companies will take advantage of the need for tens of thousands of new aircraft across the globe. When you go across the globe, whether it is to the Paris Air Show or one of the many others, one thing that becomes clear is that, when people come and look at our manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland, they look at its excellence and efficiency. The two things that we have to ensure into the future are that quality is maintained and that we have delivery on time. That way, we will grow from a £1·1 billion industry to a £2 billion industry by 2024.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement. I acknowledge the great work of the aerospace industry and how it contributes to our economy, particularly B/E Aerospace in my constituency of South Down. The Minister talked about the competitive rate of corporation tax. In the refresh of the economic strategy, has he considered that we could be on the edge of western Europe or an integral part of Europe after the referendum in June?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

The excellence of our manufacturing industry will tell, well into the future. Our aircraft industry in Northern Ireland is very well established, not just within the European Union but with Embraer in Brazil and in other areas. I am confident that, as Sir Allen McClay taught us, the manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland can compete against the best in the world and win. They are coming to Northern Ireland on the basis of the quality of our product. They are coming to Northern Ireland on the basis of the huge investment that has been put into research and development. They are coming to Northern Ireland because of the talent of our engineering workforce.

Bombardier possibly leads the globe — it is certainly highly significant in the global industry — in having up to 90% of its workforce qualified and accredited in the work that it does. In research and development, talent and the years of work that have gone into ensuring that we are a critical part of the UK SC21 supply chain, I believe that aircraft manufacturing has a positive future in Northern Ireland.

While I experience all the difficulties and pain at Bombardier, one thing that I know is that there is no future for Bombardier that does not include Belfast. Another thing that I know is that our research and development, our manufacturing, our patents, our complex composites and our metallic structures for the wings of the CSeries lead the world.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Despite the Minister's anxiety to assure us about how much he is doing, I am not minded to blame him for the global losses at Bombardier. However, does he not accept that his party conference speech just three months ago, at which he said:

"Don't let anyone tell you that manufacturing in Northern Ireland is in a difficult position."

spoke to complacency and a lack of alertness to what was coming down the tracks? Is there a contingency plan for Bombardier if the CSeries does not achieve its hoped-for level of sales? Will he remind Mr Rogers that the bulk of our aerospace trade is outside the EU?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. Some people were foolish enough, within minutes of the announcement being made, to try to engage in silly party political nonsense. When you are on the shop floor meeting people in Bombardier, you can say that it did not go down well. People were looking for the Assembly to do what Minister Farry and I did, which was immediately to put our shoulders to the wheel to focus not on ourselves but on the 580 people who, up until 2018, will lose their job and on retraining, on accreditation and on where we can find extra work for them.

I appreciate the Member's honesty. I think that most people with a reasonable IQ understand that, when a company globally restructures and Germany takes more pain than the UK, we take 17% of the pain and Canada takes over 50%, trying to blame a devolved Minister in Northern Ireland talks more of the silliness of the person who does that than the message that they are trying to give.

I answered the Member's question earlier. I ask him to work with me. The manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland has asked me, in my privileged position as their Enterprise Minister, to project confidence in the sector. I talked with the unions this morning about the damage that will be done if we talk down our manufacturing industry, talk about disasters or tsunamis, if we are stupid enough to talk about them, or talk about manufacturing having no future, if we are silly enough to do so. The industry says that confidence drives its order book. Confidence in the industry drives jobs and apprenticeships. Confidence is key.

I look at the independent advice that I am given. HMRC is telling me independently — you can study the figures for yourselves — that manufacturing in Northern Ireland is growing at a faster rate than in any other part of the United Kingdom. In two Programmes for Government, £3 billion has been invested in manufacturing. Over two Programme for Government periods, 18,000 jobs have been created, sustained and promoted in the manufacturing industry. The fact is that we now have more manufacturing jobs in Northern Ireland than at any time since 2008. We have crossed the barrier of 80,000 manufacturing jobs. That is why I make no apology for saying that I believe in Northern Ireland manufacturing. That is why I will stand shoulder to shoulder with Alain Bellemare, Michael Ryan and all the critical people in our manufacturing industry. We will stand shoulder to shoulder with them to have confidence in the product in Northern Ireland.

Yes, there have been huge challenges. Nobody knows that more than the people who have endured the pain of job loss. However, as I said earlier, even Manufacturing Northern Ireland, which is a critical friend, is saying that manufacturing is growing in Northern Ireland. I make no apology for giving confidence to the people who have the expertise in manufacturing on the shop floor or for telling the facts about a growing manufacturing industry as they are given to me independently.

Executive Committee Business

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to introduce the Land Acquisition and Compensation (Amendment) Bill, which is a Bill to amend the Land Acquisition and Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 to provide for additional payments for loss following the compulsory acquisition of land.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I call on the Minister for Employment and Learning, Dr Stephen Farry, to move the Bill.

Moved. — [Dr Farry (The Minister for Employment and Learning).]

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

A valid petition of concern was presented today in relation to amendment Nos 26 and 27. Under Standing Order 28, the votes on those two amendments cannot take place until at least one day has passed. If the amendments are moved, the votes will be taken at the beginning of business tomorrow, Tuesday 23 February. I also remind Members that the votes on amendment Nos 26 and 27 will be on a cross-community basis.

Members have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments, detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in my provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are three groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn. The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1, 2, 4, 18 to 22, 25 and 28, which deal with review and reporting functions, including the creation of a living wage. The second debate will be on amendment Nos 3, 5 to 17, 24 and 29, which deal with zero-hours contracts. The third debate will be on amendment Nos 23, 26 and 27, which deal with offences for blacklisting and the repeal of article 71 of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998.

I remind Members who intend to speak that during the debates on the three groups of amendments they should address all the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on each group has been completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill and the Question on each one will be put without further debate. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Clause 9 (Review of early conciliation)

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

We come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2, 4, 18 to 22, 25 and 28. The amendments address the review and reporting functions including the creation of a living wage. Members should note that amendment No 3 is mutually exclusive with amendment No 5. Amendment Nos 19 to 22 are consequential to amendment No 18. Amendment Nos 25 and 28 are consequential to amendment No 4. I call the Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning, Mr Robin Swann, to move amendment No 1 and address the other amendments in the group.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move amendment No 1:

In page 9, line 9, leave out from "dealt" to end of line 10 and insert

"of cases dealt with by early conciliation, the average length of time taken to deal with cases and the outcome of cases;".

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: After clause 9 insert

"Review of section 8: Assessment of matters relating to tribunal proceedings

9A.—(1) The Department must review the operation of section 8 at the end of the period of one year beginning with the commencement of that section.

(2) The Department shall, having consulted with relevant stakeholders including employers, lay the findings of this review in a report to the Assembly.

(3) The report shall in particular include?—

(a) a synopsis of consultation responses;

(b) an assessment and evaluation of the effectiveness of section 8;

(c) the number of cases overall, the number dealt with in accordance with regulations under section 8, the average length of time taken to deal with cases and the outcomes of the cases;

(d) any savings directly attributable to the introduction of regulations under section 8.

(4) The Department shall also review and report as in subsections (2) and (3) at the end of the period of three years beginning with the coming into operation of section 8.". — [Mr Swann (The Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning).]

No 4: After clause 16 insert

"Gender pay and disclosure of information

Gender pay gap information

16A.—(1) Employers must, in accordance with regulations to be made by the Department under this section, publish?—

(a) information relating to the pay of employees for the purpose of showing whether, by reference to factors of such description as is prescribed, there are differences in the pay of male and female employees; and

(b) details of the methodology used to calculate any statistics contained in the information.

(2) Where there are differences in the pay of male and female employees, an employer must publish an action plan to eliminate those differences.

(3) A copy must be sent to all employees and any trade union recognised by the employer.

(4) The Department may prescribe by regulations a limit to the total number of employees and workers in an organisation below which this section does not apply.

(5) Regulations under subsection (4) may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly.

(6) The regulations must prescribe?—

(a) descriptions of employer;

(b) descriptions of employee;

(c) how to calculate the number of employees that an employer has;

(d) a standardised method for calculating any differences in the pay of male and female employees;

(e) descriptions of information;

(f) a requirement that information include statistics on workers within each pay band in relation to?—

(i) ethnicity, and

(ii) disability;

(g) the time at which information is to be published; and

(h) the form and manner in which it is to be published.

(7) The first regulations under this section must be made by 30 June 2017.

(8) Regulations under subsection (6)(g) may not require an employer, after the first publication of information, to publish information more frequently than at intervals of 12 months or less frequently than at intervals of 36 months.

(9) The regulations shall make provision for a failure to comply with the regulations?—

(a) to be an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale for every employee;

(b) to be enforced, otherwise than as an offence, by such means as are prescribed.

(10) The reference to a failure to comply with the regulations includes a reference to a failure by a person acting on behalf of an employer.

(11) Within 18 months of the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent, the Department must, in consultation with trade unions, publish a strategy including an action plan, on eliminating differences in the pay of male and female employees.

(12) For the purposes of this section, the ‘Department’ means the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.". — [Ms McGahan.]

No 18: After clause 16 insert

"Living Wage Agency

16A. The Department must, by 1 November 2017, establish an unincorporated body of persons known as “the Living Wage Agency” for the purpose of measuring, researching and advancing a living wage.". — [Mr Flanagan.]

No 19: After clause 16 insert

"Reporting

16B.—(1) The Living Wage Agency shall, on an annual basis, publish a report, in which it shall?—

(a) determine what single hourly rate shall be deemed to be a living wage, which is to be calculated based on the minimum income standard;

(b) identify barriers that impede employers within sectors from paying the living wage;

(c) bring forward recommendations to address the barriers identified in subsection (b);

(d) bring forward recommendations to reduce the proportion of employees and workers paid less than the living wage;

(e) set targets to reduce the proportion of employees and workers paid less than the living wage;

(f) monitor progress in reducing the proportion of employees and workers paid less than the living wage; and

(g) undertake any other related matters as the Department shall determine.

(2) The minimum income standard is the income that people need in order to reach a minimum socially acceptable standard of living.

(3) The Living Wage Agency shall determine how the minimum income standard is to be calculated.

(4) Before arriving at the recommendations to be included in their report, the Living Wage Agency shall consult?—

(a) such organisations representative of employers as they think fit;

(b) such organisations representative of workers as they think fit; and

(c) if they think fit, any other body or person.". — [Mr Flanagan.]

No 20: After clause 16 insert

"Membership

16C—(1) The Living Wage Agency shall consist of a chairperson and members appointed by the Minister.

(2) In appointing members, the Minister shall have regard to the desirability of securing that there is such a balance as the Minister considers appropriate between?—

(a) members with knowledge or experience of, or interest in, trade unions or matters relating to workers generally;

(b) members with knowledge or experience of, or interest in, employers’ associations or matters relating to employers generally;

(c) members with expertise in labour market analysis; and

(d) members with other relevant knowledge or experience.

(3) Members shall hold and vacate office in accordance with their terms of appointment, subject to the following provisions.

(4) A member may resign his or her membership by giving notice to the Minister.

(5) A person who ceases to be a member shall be eligible for re-appointment.

(6) The Minister may by notice to the member concerned remove from office a member who is in the opinion of the Minister unable or unfit to perform his duties as member.". — [Mr Flanagan.]

No 21: After clause 16 insert

"Operational considerations

16D. The Minister shall provide the Living Wage Agency with?—

(a) such staff from within the Department,

(b) such accommodation, equipment and other facilities, and

(c) such sums,

as the Minister may reasonably determine are required by the Living Wage Agency for carrying out their duties in preparing any report on matters referred to them under this Act.". — [Mr Flanagan.]

No 22: After clause 16 insert

"Remuneration

16E. The Minister may pay the members of the Living Wage Agency such allowances in respect of travel or other expenses properly incurred by them, or in respect of loss of remuneration sustained by them, in the performance of their duties, as the Minister may determine.". — [Mr Flanagan.]

No 25: In clause 25, page 16, line 10, after "Act" insert

", except in section (Gender pay and disclosure of information),". — [Ms McGahan.]

No 28: In the long title, after "disclosure;" insert

"to make provision for disclosure of gender pay information;". — [Mr Flanagan.]

Today, I will be speaking on the two amendments tabled by the Committee, namely amendment Nos 1 and 2. Amendment No 1 relates to clause 9, which concerns a review of the early conciliation service. The Committee tabled this amendment at Consideration Stage, but was made aware by the Department that there was a minor problem in the wording of the clause. The Minister gave an assurance to the Committee that he would be content to support the amendment, provided that it was redrafted accordingly. The Committee has thus re-tabled the amendment at Further Consideration Stage to specify the remit of the review of the early conciliation service, namely the number of cases dealt with by early conciliation, the average length of time taken to deal with cases and the outcome of cases.

Amendment No 2 relates to new clause 9A. Clause 9A concerns a review of section 8, which involves an assessment of matters relating to tribunal proceedings. The amendment was not called at Consideration Stage, because the Minister’s opposition to clause 4 and clause 8 regarding neutral assessment meant that the references within the Committee's amendment were no longer correct. The Committee has accommodated the changes brought by the Minister at Consideration Stage and has re-tabled an updated version of the amendment to ensure that the policy intention of the review procedure is placed in the Bill. The review of section 8 will begin operation one year after the service commences and, from then on, every three years. The Department has a duty to undertake a review of the assessment service relating to tribunal proceedings. The findings of that review will be laid in a report to the Assembly, and the report shall include a synopsis of consultation responses; an assessment and evaluation of the effectiveness of section 8; the number of cases overall; the number dealt with in accordance with regulations under section 8; the average length of time taken to deal with cases; the outcomes of the cases; and any savings directly attributable to the introduction of regulations under section 8.

The Committee supports the Bill and will watch closely how it is implemented.

I speak now as the Ulster Unionist spokesman on employment and learning. We will be supporting amendment Nos 1, 2 and 4, although we will seek clarity from the Minister with regard to disability. We will be opposing amendment Nos 18 to 22 on the proposal to create a living wage agency. It has not been discussed widely, either within the Committee or any of the consultation responses we received, nor has it been dealt with in any great detail. My personal concern is that we would be creating another quango, which, at this stage, does not have due process regarding what is out there and the concerns that are meant to be taken into consideration. There are also the recommendations. What teeth will it have within legislation, if we are creating an agency only to evaluate and review? So we will be opposing that. We think that the living wage agency should be a UK-wide agency. The issue would be better dealt with on a UK-wide sphere, rather than solely in a Northern Ireland context.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

I rise to speak to group 1. Amendment Nos 1 and 2 are technical in nature, as the Chair of the Committee has outlined. I do not intend to say any more on that matter. I have some reservations about the bureaucratic burden that amendment No 4 has the potential to place on small businesses. Rather than increasing that burden, we should be striving towards the reduction of red tape for our business sector. The CBI has also expressed its concern around that issue, especially regarding the disability sector, and we have to acknowledge that as well. We need to be careful that we do not allow gender to overcome ability and that someone with ability is not excluded simply because of their gender. With those reservations, we acknowledge the amendment that is before the House, and we are of a mind to give our support to it.

Amendment Nos 18 to 22, which deal with the living wage, talk about the Department establishing a new body, how that body will report, the membership of that organisation, its operational considerations and its remunerations. I do not believe that that requires legislation at all. I believe that it is a policy matter and should be dealt with in that sphere. It should be dealt with as a policy issue rather than being legislated for. I think it is the wrong place for it. It is my understanding that it is a reserved matter, so we need to be careful about how we deal with the issue. We will be opposing amendment Nos 18 to 22.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

Yes.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Just on the living wage, do you not think that we should aspire to ensure that all low earners are paid a reasonable wage that allows them to feed and clothe their families and that, unless we have that in legislation, we will never move the argument on?

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

Absolutely. I have no difficulty with that, but I believe that, in doing something like that, we need to do it in the proper and correct context. This is not the context in which to deal with it. It is a policy issue, and taking it out of policy and putting it into legislation is not the correct context at all. Therefore, that is why we will oppose amendment Nos 18 to 22.

Bronwyn McGahan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. I support all the amendments in group 1. I want to specifically speak to amendment No 4. I welcome the opportunity to address the House on this important issue of gender pay and disclosure of information. I am going to be very short in my comments, as the argument for addressing the issue has been well rehearsed over many years. There is no doubt that gender pay reflects ongoing discrimination and inequalities in the workplace and that those largely impact on women. We must have information relating to the pay of employees for the purposes of showing whether there are differences in the pay of males and females. We must also have the details of the methodology used to calculate any statistics in the information. Campaign groups advocating action on the gender pay gap support the need for accurate information on the scale of the problem to allow it to be addressed. That information needs to be of sufficient depth to shine a light on the main causes of the pay gap, and it will need to be shared with employees and trade union representatives. It must very clearly show how the pay gap is calculated and include an action plan on how we can correct it.

It will be the responsibility of OFMDFM, as the lead on equality matters, to bring forward regulations within the time frame. There will also be a requirement on the Department to publish a strategy, including an action plan, on eliminating differences in the pay of male and female employees. The strategy and action plan will be important in addressing the gender pay gap, and only by getting accurate and detailed information from employers on the extent of the gender pay gap and the rationale behind it can the relevant action be taken to correct the situation.

Amendment Nos 25 and 28 are consequential to that amendment and make minor changes to the Bill, including changing the long title to reflect the additionality of gender pay to the Bill. As we approach the celebration of International Women's Day in a few weeks' time, dealing with these matters would be a welcome step in addressing the gender pay gap, which has yet to be abolished 46 years after the introduction of the Equal Pay Act.

Gerard Diver (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the opportunity to speak at Further Consideration Stage and to support the amendments. In addressing them, I very much welcome amendment Nos 1 and 2. I know they are the product of discussion in Committee and at Consideration Stage.

Amendment No 4 relates to gender pay information. As Bronwyn said, the arguments for that were well rehearsed at Consideration Stage. I know that, at that stage, the proposer decided not to move the amendment, but the SDLP is on record as being in support of the principles behind the amendment at that stage. Last year, the ONS said that there had actually been relatively little change in the gender pay gap over recent years. In the UK, the gap between women and men's pay for full-time workers was 9·4% in April 2015 compared with 9·6% in 2014. As we know, the difference here in Northern Ireland has thankfully not been so stark of late, but the case remains that we do not require companies to publish pay statistics to the level that we would like to see possible. A notable difference to the amendment, rather than the version in England within the Equality Act, is a duty to publish gender pay statistics to trade unions and within the workplace.

The Minister made the point at Consideration Stage:

"At no point does the proposed clause 16A define "Department" which, in accordance with clause25, must, therefore, be read as a reference to the Department for Employment and Learning and in future, therefore, the Department for the Economy." — [Official Report, Vol 112, No 4, p26, col 1].

That is being ratified in today's amendment.

An Equality Commission code of practice, published in 2013, provides practical guidance to employers on how to promote equality of opportunity and to avoid sex discrimination in pay structures. This is, in the opinion of the SDLP, simply not enough. That is why we are happy to see, in amendment No 4, provision for a strategy on securing equal pay in the workforce to be brought within 18 months. That is, at its very core, a request for information on the gender pay gap. Many important factors, including a legacy of discrimination, have played an important role in gender discrimination in the workplace over the decades. Roles predominately carried out by women are undervalued by many, and men have dominated the best-paid positions.

A point made at Consideration Stage, which is true, is that there is a general inequality in the level of caring responsibilities between the two genders. The gap appears to be wider for older women, women from ethnic minorities and women in certain occupations. The information that the amendment seeks could help us to put in place action to eradicate gender inequality in the workplace, and the SDLP certainly supports that.

Amendment Nos 18 to 22 are concerned with the proposal to create a living wage agency. First, I would like to put on record that the SDLP fully supports the idea of a living wage. That said, we have heard outlined, over the past months, some concerns about the potential effect of the living wage on microbusinesses and employers who have expressed an inability to pay without incurring job losses. Obviously, that needs to be watched on an ongoing basis.

Evidence on the living wage shows that the better you treat an employee, the more valuable that employee becomes in an organisation. The living wage may not be the barrier to growth that smaller businesses feel it to be. We are dealing with human beings, and, around the world, it is the same notion: in general, the better you treat people, the more you will get out of them in any employment situation.

The Oxford Economics report shows that, if we were to pay a true living wage — not the Chancellor's proposed increased minimum wage — net employment in Northern Ireland would actually go up. When those at the lower end of the labour market are paid more, they will contribute more readily to the local economy, and that in turn will stimulate growth and have a multiplier effect on the economy in general, not to mention that employees who are better paid show greater commitment to the organisation and high productivity levels. Following the adoption of the living wage, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) found that turnover of contractors actually fell from 4% to 1%.

As to the particulars of the agency, I look forward to hearing the debate, but the SDLP certainly supports the creation of an agency to oversee this very important matter.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I will speak briefly on the amendments in this group. Alliance supports amendment Nos 1 and 2, which come from the Committee. They reflect discussions at Consideration Stage on the need for some minor redrafting to avoid the potential identification of individuals and breaches of confidentiality.

We will also support the Sinn Féin amendments on the gender pay audit. That reflects legislation passed in Great Britain through the Equality Act 2010 that, coincidently, came into effect through regulations in the past few weeks. Alliance believes that there should be similar measures in Northern Ireland and that they should reflect our particular circumstances. In that regard, we do not need to replicate the same terms or thresholds that apply elsewhere.

Despite considerable progress in recent years, there is still a significant gap in the rates of pay between men and women. That reflects, in the main, structural differences in the labour market and does not necessarily represent wide-ranging cases of direct discrimination. However, while women, on the whole, have higher participation rates in further and higher education and, in turn, better qualifications, there are issues of retention and progression in the workforce; variances in levels of part-time work or irregular contracts; and differences in the employment rate. That may arise from choice but may also represent shortcomings in workforce policy and practice or government legislation. I congratulate the Minister on the passage of the Work and Families Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 with its new shared parental leave and improved access to flexible working.

On the amendments relating to the living wage, Alliance urges great caution. These amendments have been tabled very late in the day. There may be merit in much of what is proposed, but there has been no formal consideration of the issues, no public consultation, no costings and no assessment of regulatory impact. Given that this is a non-devolved matter and the provisions here are skirting around that, there are legitimate questions as to how effective or otherwise these mechanisms would be and whether they would represent value for money. Alliance is open to action in this area, but there needs to be wider consideration first. If we were to pass these amendments today, coming as they do at Further Consideration Stage, there would be no opportunity to rectify any issues until or unless fresh primary legislation were passed. It is in those respects that we urge great caution.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an deis labhairt i bhfabhar na leasuithe go dtí seo. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this group of amendments, and I will focus my remarks on amendment No 4, which deals with gender pay, and amendment Nos 18 to 22, which would establish the living wage agency.

Amendment No 4 places a requirement on OFMDFM to bring forward regulations setting out the manner in which employers must publish information on the extent of the pay differential between male and female employees. This is largely the same as our proposal at Consideration Stage. That received support, in words at least, from Members across the Chamber, except for a few small points that were raised during the debate, which have been reflected in today's revised version.

The original proposal placed a duty on employers with more than 50 employees to report on the extent of the gender pay gap in an organisation. Following consultation with the CBI and others, however, we have decided that it would be more appropriate to allow the Department to set the minimum number, following public consultation, and to set a number that meets the needs of our circumstances, rather than merely to follow the position in Britain, where a figure of 250 has been adopted. We do not think that that is sufficient here, because the vast majority of employers here do not have anywhere near that number of personnel. We propose to allow the Department to bring forward its own proposal on the minimum number of employees that an employer must have to be required to engage in this reporting.

The proposal that we brought forward at Consideration Stage also required that the first regulations on this matter needed to be made by 10 November. Following discussion with the Minister and his departmental officials, however, we accept that that time frame may be too tight, and we have amended it to be the end of June next year. That gives the relevant Department a full year for the regulations to be made.

The other substantive change is that the requirement will no longer be placed on DEL or, indeed, its successor Department; rather, it will be the responsibility of OFMDFM, as the Department that takes the lead on equality matters, to bring forward these regulations within that time frame. One reason for our intention to keep it within DEL is to do with the admissibility of the amendment. Following further advice, we were guided that we could, in fact, transfer this responsibility to OFMDFM and have it remain within the broad parameters of the Bill, so we were more than content to make that change. That also applies to the requirement for the Executive to bring forward a strategy on tackling the gender pay gap.

Some Members highlighted a red herring through the issue of disability reporting. A mechanism already exists, however, for employees to self-report a disability, whether physical or mental. We envisage that it will be a matter for the Department to set out in regulations how best that should work. The CBI has tried to raise this as an issue, but I sincerely do not think that it is a matter of great import.

I think that the Department can find a way through the regulations that it will bring forward to deal with any concerns that employers' groups might have about the requirements of people who have a disability, but I do not think that it is enough to warrant anybody opposing the amendment.

As I have said, there will also be a requirement on OFMDFM to publish a strategy that includes an action plan to eliminate the differential in pay between male and female employees. I will reiterate a point that I made at Consideration Stage: the statistics at a macroeconomic level reveal that females here, on the whole, are paid more than males, but that can be explained by the prevalence of females who are employed in the public sector, where salaries tend to be higher, and by the decline in the construction sector, which was dominated by well-paid male workers in the round.

The strategy and action plan has to be a key weapon in tackling the gender pay gap. Only by getting accurate and detailed information from employers on the extent of the gender pay gap and the rationale behind it can the Executive put appropriate steps in place to rectify the situation. It is up to employers to comply with the law on equal pay, but there are many other barriers such as accessing childcare that prevent females receiving true equal pay in the workplace. The Executive need to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to remove those inequalities and barriers at the earliest possible stage.

Amendment Nos 18 to 22 make provision for the establishment of an organisation to be known as the living wage agency for the purpose of measuring, researching and advancing a living wage. We need to build an economy that is based on well-paid jobs to help to take our people out of poverty. Too many workers here do not earn enough to have a decent standard of living. The proposal from the British Government to increase the minimum wage does not go far enough to address the problems of low pay that exist in many sectors of our economy. We do not yet have the power to set a minimum rate of pay, but that is not what we are arguing about today, even though some Members have once again used the red herring that this is not a devolved matter as a reason for not supporting the amendment. The power to set a minimum rate of pay still rests with the British Government. In my opinion, that power should be transferred, and we, as locally elected representatives, should be able to tailor public policy to the needs of our citizens. The living wage agency would not replace the body that sets the minimum wage; it would be charged with determining what a living wage here is and promote that as the basic hourly rate that people should be paid and that it should be based on the minimum income standard.

The living wage agency would be empowered to identify barriers that impede employers in certain sectors, whether in retail, hospitality, services or others, from paying the living wage. The agency should then bring recommendations to the Executive to address those barriers using existing or potential policy levers. The living wage agency would also have the power to set targets to reduce the proportion of workers and employers who earn less than the living wage and to monitor progress in reducing that number.

There is also a section that states that, before determining what constitutes a living wage, the agency would have to consult the employer and employee representative groups to ensure that all sides have an input into the determination of a figure. At the minute, a voluntary organisation based in England determines what a living wage is, but there is insufficient research here to determine what constitutes a living wage here. It is better to establish a non-statutory agency on a legislative footing not only to guide and assist the Executive in determining a living wage but to play a role in promoting to employers that employees should be paid the living wage.

The amendment states that it would be up to the Minister to appoint a chairperson and members of the living wage agency and to ensure an effective balance between trade unionists, employers' groups and economists so that it can take decisions and make recommendations in the round. Of course, any decisions that it takes will not be binding on employers. It is merely a mechanism to help to promote a highly paid economy, to help to encourage employers to move away from low pay, to pay workers a decent hourly rate so that they can get a good standard of living and to identify for the Executive what barriers exist in some sectors to paying the living wage.

It is not envisaged that the body would be overly expensive to operate because we propose that the staff who service it should be existing staff in the Department and that the nominees should be representatives of groups with a vested interest in this policy area. None of the staff complement would need to be paid any more than they get at the minute, and no members of the agency would need to be paid because they would be representatives of trade unions or employers' groups or from a professional economist background. The only cost that should be applicable in that regard would be to cover basic expenses and potential lost earnings.

I heard one Member say that we were establishing another quango: well, we are not establishing a significant quango. It will be a very small organisation with as few members as the Minister shall determine. That small group of people will be charged with establishing what the living wage here is. At the end of the day, there is broad acceptance that we need more evidence-based policy here. If we are taking decisions, we need to have all the information that exists on the economic climate that we operate in, and one key factor is what the cost of living for our people is.

As I have said, we do not yet have the power to set a minimum wage. That power should be transferred and, if we did that, I would argue strongly that the minimum wage should be increased. Some Members have tried to use the fact that the powers to set a minimum wage have not been devolved as a reason for opposing the amendment: I do not buy it. The agency would not impact on the minimum wage at all. It would make recommendations on what the living wage should be and bring recommendations to the Executive on what barriers exist for employers who might want to pay the living wage and how we can make it more affordable for them to do so through changing existing policy levers or introducing new policy mechanisms. The living wage agency would be empowered to look at all those issues in the round and bring forward a figure that everyone could live with, as well as solutions to help the sectors that might struggle.

The recent proposed increase in the minimum wage has caused some concern amongst employers. The Minister of Health made announcements about putting additional money into domiciliary care and into nursing and care home facilities because of the proposed increase in the minimum wage. That is a welcome step through which workers will be paid more, but it will have a knock-on impact for organisations that have fixed incomes and may not be fully able to cope with the increase. It will be up to the living wage agency to identify what barriers exist in some sectors to stop people being paid more. That is a fairly rational proposal.

There is also a strong argument to be made that, once we establish what a living wage for people here is, more and more employers will want to become accredited living wage employers. That could be one of the strong points of the living wage agency: it could have an accreditation scheme whereby employers are publicly known to be living wage employers. The chances of getting better staff and getting more applicants for vacancies would improve a business's reputation, and I think that it would be a badge that employers would want, along the lines of Investors in People and other forms of accreditation that are currently offered. The public sector should take the lead in that regard. If we get a living wage agency up and running here, the first step that we should take is to ensure that all employees working directly or indirectly through the public sector are paid the living wage, whether that is direct employees, people working in the supply chain or subcontractors. The establishment of a living wage agency would allow us to be much better informed about the potential financial implications of that.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

At the outset, I want to put on record my concerns at the considerable number of amendments that have been tabled at this late stage in the legislative process, many of which do not relate to the main provisions of the Bill as originally drafted, and some of which do not even fall under the responsibility of my Department. There has been some public consultation and Committee scrutiny of some of the issues covered by the amendments; however, with respect to several, there has been no public consultation or Committee scrutiny whatsoever. With the period of notice for amendments to primary legislation being, in practice, less than for a no-day-named motion in the Assembly, there is a real danger of bad law being passed. That is not to deny that there may be merit in many of the amendments, but there should be proper consideration of the issues involved. There may be a case for some of the amendments to proceed today, but I urge great caution with respect to the majority of them.

I turn first to amendment Nos 1 and 2, which, respectively, amend clause 9 and introduce new clause 9A. The amendments have been tabled by the Chair of the Committee for Employment and Learning. At Consideration Stage, I expressed concern that the amendments, as they were then drafted, could have negative consequences for confidentiality in respect of the important new services of early conciliation and neutral assessment. I am grateful to the Committee for taking that concern on board and coming back to the House with these two considered amendments, which address the issue by removing the requirement to report on individual cases and, instead, placing the focus on cases in aggregate. The Bill, amended in that way, will require separate reviews of early conciliation and neutral assessment at the end of one year and again at the end of three years following the commencement of provisions relating to each respective service.

I am content with that approach. I stress again my appreciation for the positive approach that the Committee has taken, which has enabled the Bill to move to where it is today despite the challenging time constraints.

I move now to new clause 16A — amendment No 4 — and the related amendment to clause 25 — amendment No 25 — tabled by Ms McGahan, Mr Flanagan, Mr McCann and Ms Fearon, as well as amendment No 28. The amendments take a revised approach to the gender pay amendment that was tabled but not moved at Consideration Stage. The intention behind them is the same: to set in place regulations requiring employers to publish information on gender pay differences. Where differences are established, employers would be required to publish an action plan to eliminate them. The responsible Department, having consulted the trade unions, would also be required to publish a strategy, including an action plan, on eliminating gender pay differences. I am pleased to note that the amendments take on board observations that I made at Consideration Stage.

As the proposed new clause 16A stands, the responsible Department is OFMDFM. That is much more in keeping with the broad remit of that Department around gender pay and sex discrimination and, indeed, all equality issues. It is important that we do not preside over a fragmentation of policy responsibility relating to those critical matters. Crucially, the amendment is much less prescriptive in matters such as the threshold for the size of companies or organisations. It is right that that be left to public consultation and, in due course, regulations. That takes on board the comments and fears expressed by Mr Buchanan that we are not locked into this being a company with 50 employees and that consideration will be given to what is the appropriate level for Northern Ireland. That regulation will have to come back to the Assembly for consideration. I also recognise what Mr Flanagan said, in that we do not necessarily have to reflect the case in Great Britain, where there is a threshold of 250. That may well be too large for our circumstances in Northern Ireland. Again, that issue can be bottomed out through the public consultation and, in due course, the consideration of the relevant regulation.

There is a small complication with how realistic it may be to collect meaningful data from employees around disability, as there can often be an under-reporting of that issue. That was reflected in comments by Members. However, that in itself does not negate the Assembly proceeding with the amendment today, although it may limit its effectiveness. Again, those issues could be explored further through regulations.

I said at Consideration Stage and reiterate today that, as Minister for Employment and Learning, I cannot take a formal view on the amendments. However, I am personally sympathetic to their intent, and I expect that Members will be in agreement that we want to see the elimination of gender pay differentials. However, it is for Members to decide on whether they believe that the amendments would achieve the objective in the right way. Anna Lo spoke for our party, and, speaking personally, I can say that we recognise that it is appropriate to put in place those measures to address the differentials. It is also important to recognise the wider context and the policy levers that exist in government, where we look to a range of policies and practices that support participation, retention and progression in the workforce. There is also a powerful economic argument for ensuring that that is the case. If we want to make sure that we fully compete in the global marketplace, we have to make full use of local talents and ensure that everyone's abilities are developed to the full.

Amendment Nos 18 to 22 — five new clauses — tabled by Mr Flanagan, Ms McGahan and Mr McCann would establish a living wage agency:

"for the purpose of measuring, researching and advancing a living wage."

I want to make it clear that this is a debate not on the concept or the rights and wrongs of the creation of a living wage but on the creation of a living wage agency in Northern Ireland and its potential roles and functions. It is envisaged that the body would report annually on an hourly rate that is to be deemed a living wage; identify barriers to paying it; make recommendations to address those; set targets to reduce the proportion of people who are paid less than the living wage; and monitor progress in achieving those. Provision is also made for the composition, staffing and funding of the proposed agency. It is notable that the agency's financing is to be determined without reference to the Finance Minister or that Department.

The spirit of the clauses appears to be to deliver improved living standards by advocating a wage that, in the words of clause 16B(2), relates to,

"a minimum socially acceptable standard of living."

I am not sure that there would be widespread agreement on what that standard might look like. To be clear, the clauses may well have a laudable goal, but there was no notice of the amendments until three working days before this stage of the Bill. That being the case, there has been no opportunity for any scrutiny, let alone any public consultation or engagement with stakeholders, in relation to the amendments. Similarly, there has been no regulatory impact assessment. The formal responsibilities in this area lie with the UK Parliament under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The Assembly should take into consideration the value or otherwise of putting measures in place in Northern Ireland that would only be advisory. The limitation on what it could do needs to be set against the costs involved. At this point in time, we have no assessment of the potential benefits, anticipated costs or the relative views from stakeholders on these matters. There is also the issue of how we will reconcile what any agency in Northern Ireland does with what is happening in the UK as a whole and the tensions that may arise between the perspectives that come from the bodies in different jurisdictions.

I do not think that it is reasonable to commit my Department or its successor to establishing and paying for a body that, materially, may make absolutely no difference, however persuasive its recommendations may be, to the living standards of people in Northern Ireland. However, it is important that we do not let go of this issue entirely.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Yes.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I understand the list of issues you have raised, but I think that the point my colleague made was that, whilst we may not have any power over this at the moment, that does not stop us sending out a clear message to people on low pay that the Assembly stands shoulder to shoulder with them, recognising that the wage they earn is not enough for them to meet their weekly needs. He said that we had some power and influence over Departments, statutory authorities and councils to ask them to initiate the step of having a living wage, in preparation, hopefully, for us getting some power to deal with that.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I was going to say that I note and compliment the enthusiasm of the Members in tabling the amendments, but, in doing that, we need to be clear what the amendments would do. If the intent behind them is to make a statement of the value that the Assembly places on the living wage being paid in Northern Ireland, there is a range of ways in which we can do that. We do not need to pass specific amendments into law to achieve that outcome. It is entirely conceivable that a body could be established by a future Minister. Whether that needs legislation remains to be seen, but it is an initiative that may well be taken in the future.

It is important that we have proper engagement with stakeholders when we move ahead with these issues. I have no doubt that tonight, when we discuss the fair employment exemption for teacher training, we will hear an argument from the Member's Benches about the fact that we need more time for proper consideration of those issues, that there has been no public consultation around the matters and that the Assembly should not jump ahead on the basis of an amendment tabled at Further Consideration Stage. I have not seen the speeches, but I imagine that that is what they will say. I have to say that you cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, you cannot rule things out because you want more time to think about it and then come to the Assembly with three days' notice, saying, "Here is a raft of amendments around a living wage agency, and let us pass them because we want to take a stand on the living wage".

We can take a stand on the living wage if people want to do that, but we have to think carefully through the implications of putting an agency into law at this stage without any engagement with stakeholders and without ensuring that what will be put forward will make a difference and will not be counterproductive. No one has assured me on any of those points whatsoever. There will be other opportunities to legislate, if legislation is required, to take that forward, but I do not believe that it would be right for the Assembly to move ahead today on the basis of what is before us. We will need to separate the proposals from the issue. The two are not the same. Anyone who votes against the amendments today is not voting against a living wage. I am certainly not voting against a living wage, and I am sure that I speak for everyone else who expresses caution on the issue. We are discussing five amendments around an agency, and it is important that we take proper time to reflect on that and take the views of stakeholders and think through how this will work and whether it will make a difference.

For that reason, I am opposing the amendments. I look forward to discussing and responding to the debates on the other groupings.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I rise to wind up on group 1. I thank the House for its, I think, unanimous support for amendment Nos 1 and 2, tabled in the name of the Committee.

On amendment No 4, which deals with the gender pay gap, it has been noted here through Members' contributions that not moving the amendment at Consideration Stage has allowed the proposals to be tweaked and amended so that they meet the needs of the House and of Northern Ireland society in general. From what I have gauged, that is why amendment No 4 is receiving the full support of the House. Concerns were raised about the reference to disability, but I think that the Minister has allayed our fears, in that disability remains a self-declaring aspect in the amendment, so we are keen to support it, and I think that it has received the full support of the House.

With regard to the living wage agency, this is a response to what some Members have contributed. Tom Buchanan said that it was still a reserved matter and that the House needed to be careful in how it proceeded. Gerard Diver raised concerns about how it would affect microbusiness and made a very valid point that the better we treat the employee, the better the employee becomes. That is an opinion that nobody in the House could argue with. Anna Lo made the point that the matter had come late in the day without public consultation, and the Minister raised that to some extent.

In response to my comments as an Ulster Unionist Committee member, Phil referred to my concerns that we were creating another quango. In his contribution, he referred to the fact that the decisions of the body would be non-binding, and the Minister reinforced that by saying that it would only be advisory. That is why we want to proceed with caution in regard to the amendment —

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Certainly.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Again, I understand what you say, but we are not only trying to create the thing. I know what the Minister said, but the likes of Belfast City Council took a decision on the living wage. Having had the discussion here today, we should be able to move that forward and encourage and advise other councils and statutory authorities to move to a position of paying a fair wage for a fair day's work.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I think that the Member knows my position on the issues well enough to know that I agree with him on that point, but I do not think that the amendments do what you want to do, Mr McCann, and that is the concern. We have a responsibility through our councils and public agencies across Northern Ireland, and this is something we should move to, but my concern and that of my party is that we will not achieve that through the creation of this body.

When I raised my concerns about creating another quango, Mr Flanagan's response was that it would have only a small number of members supported by departmental officials, but he went on to refer to it actually delivering an accreditation scheme for organisations and said that employers could be recognised as living wage employers. His comparator for that was Investors in People. I am sure the Member remembers as well as I do that one of the cost-saving measures that the Minister for Employment and Learning made was to give Investors in People and that accreditation back to BIS in Westminster, so he is arguing against himself on that.

I appreciate what the Member and his party are trying to do, as I did on the gender pay issue, and I appreciate the fact that he did not move the amendments at Consideration Stage but instead tabled them at Further Consideration Stage with the further tweaking that was necessary. However, we in the Ulster Unionist Party echo the concerns raised by Anna Lo in this case: there has not been the proper work and dedication put into this as a legislative motion in these five amendments. That is why I support amendment Nos 1 and 2.

Amendment No 1 agreed to.

New Clause

Amendment No 2 made:

After clause 9 insert

"Review of section 8: Assessment of matters relating to tribunal proceedings

9A.—(1) The Department must review the operation of section 8 at the end of the period of one year beginning with the commencement of that section.

(2) The Department shall, having consulted with relevant stakeholders including employers, lay the findings of this review in a report to the Assembly.

(3) The report shall in particular include?—

(a) a synopsis of consultation responses;

(b) an assessment and evaluation of the effectiveness of section 8;

(c) the number of cases overall, the number dealt with in accordance with regulations under section 8, the average length of time taken to deal with cases and the outcomes of the cases;

(d) any savings directly attributable to the introduction of regulations under section 8.

(4) The Department shall also review and report as in subsections (2) and (3) at the end of the period of three years beginning with the coming into operation of section 8.". — [Mr Swann (The Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning).]

New clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

We now come to the second group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 3, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 5 to 17 and 24 and 29, which deal with zero-hours contracts. Amendment No 24 is consequential to amendment No 3, and amendment No 29 is consequential to a number of earlier amendments. I call Ms Anna Lo to move amendment No 3 and to address the other amendments in the group, but, before she speaks, I remind her that Question Time is at 2.00 pm and I may need to interrupt her.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I beg to move amendment No 3:

After clause 16 insert

"Zero hours workers

16A. After Article 59 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (meaning of “wages” etc.) insert?—

“PART IVA

ZERO HOURS WORKERS

Zero hours workers

59A.—(1) The Department may by regulations make such provision as the Department considers appropriate for the purpose of preventing abuses arising out of or in connection with the use of?—

(a) zero hours contracts;

(b) non-contractual zero hours arrangements; or

(c) worker’s contracts of a kind specified by the regulations.

(2) In this Article?—

'non-contractual zero hours arrangement” means an arrangement other than a worker’s contract under which?—

(a) an employer and an individual agree terms on which the individual will do any work where the employer makes it available to the individual and the individual agrees to do it, but

(b) the employer is not required to make any work available to the individual, nor the individual required to accept it;

and in this Article “employer”, in relation to a non-contractual zero hours arrangement, is to be read accordingly;

“zero hours contract” means a contract of employment or other worker's contract under which?—

(a) the undertaking to do or perform work is an undertaking to do so conditionally on the employer making work available to the worker; and

(b) there is no certainty that any such work will be made available to the worker.

(3) For the purposes of this Article?—

(a) an employer makes work available to a worker if the employer requests or requires the worker to do the work; and

(b) references to work and doing work include references to services and performing them.

(4) The worker’s contracts which may be specified under paragraph (1)(c) are those in relation to which the Department considers it appropriate for provision made by the regulations to apply, having regard, in particular, to provision made by the worker’s contracts as to income, rate of pay or working hours.

(5) Regulations under this Article may amend or repeal any statutory provision (including paragraphs (2) to (4)).'.".

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 5: After clause 16 insert

"Zero hours contract

16A.—(1) Zero hours contracts means a contract of employment or other worker’s contract under which?—

(a) the undertaking to do or perform work or services is an undertaking to do so conditionally on the employer making work or services available to the worker, and

(b) there is no certainty that any such work or services will be made available to the worker.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) the Department may by regulations vary the definition.

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly.". — [Mr Flanagan.]

No 6: After clause 16 insert

"Contract information

16B.—(1) Employers shall be required to give notice in writing of the minimum hours of their workers’ employment.

(2) The notice shall be given before the commencement of the contract. If it is given orally, it must be given in writing within seven days from the commencement of the contract.

(3) The requirement under this section is without prejudice to the obligations of employers in respect of employees under section 33 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.

(4) A worker who does not receive a notice under subsection (1) shall be regarded for the purposes of this Act as if he or she were a zero hours contract worker.

(5) In complying with the duty under section 33 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, an employer may refer to any document issued under subsection (1).". — [Mr Flanagan.]

No 7: After clause 16 insert

"Equal treatment

16C.—(1) Employers shall be required to treat zero hours contract workers on the same basis as comparable workers engaged by their employer on fixed and regular working hours contracts.

(2) The requirement of equal treatment shall be an implied term of any contract between a zero hours contract worker and his or her employer, and the implied term shall apply to all matters relating to terms and conditions of employment.

(3) A comparable worker is a worker selected by the zero hours contract worker on the grounds that the worker in question is engaged on the same or broadly similar work having regard, where relevant, to whether the worker selected has a similar level of qualification and skills.

(4) For the avoidance of doubt, subsection (2) applies to the overtime rates payable when the worker exceeds the minimum hours of work under the terms of his or her contract.

(5) Subsection (2) shall not apply to the allocation of working time.". — [Mr Flanagan.]

No 8: After clause 16 insert

"Reasonable notice

16D.—(1) The Department must by regulations require employers to give zero hours contract workers reasonable notice of?—

(a) any request or requirement to undertake a period of employment; and

(b) any cancellation of a period of employment already agreed.

(2) A period of notice shall not be reasonable if given less than 72 hours before the period of employment referred to in subsection (1).". — [Mr Flanagan.]

No 9: As an amendment to amendment No 8, at end insert

"(3) If a zero hours contract worker accepts employment offered contrary to the requirements of subsections (1) and (2), the employer shall be required to pay the zero hours contract worker at a rate of 150% of the rate they would normally be paid for the period in question.

(4) An employer who has cancelled a period of employment of a zero hours contract worker contrary to the requirements of subsections (1) and (2) shall be required to pay the zero hours contract worker for the period of employment in question, even though no work has been done.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), the amount of payment shall be made up of?—

(a) the payment the zero hours contract worker would normally be paid by his or her employer for the period in question; and

(b) a sum equivalent to any other monetary loss incurred as a result of the cancellation.’’. — [Mr Flanagan.]

No 10: After clause 16 insert

"Requests for fixed and regular employment

16E.—(1) There shall be a duty on employers to consider at any time a request by a zero hours contract worker for fixed and regular working hours unless a request has been made in the previous 12 weeks.

(2) An employer to whom a request under subsection (1) is made shall deal with the application within ten working days.

(3) In considering a request, the employer shall give overriding consideration to the interest of the worker in having fixed and regular working hours.

(4) An application by a worker under this section shall be refused only where there are compelling business reasons to do so.

(5) The employer’s desire to use zero hours contracts is not a compelling business reason for using such contracts.

(6) An application shall be treated as having been refused if the provisions of subsection (2) have not been complied with.

(7) A zero hours contract worker whose request under subsection (1) has been refused may make an application to an employment tribunal.

(8) An employment tribunal shall not consider a complaint under this section unless it is presented?—

(a) before the end of the period of three months commencing ten working days after the application for fixed and regular employment was made, or

(b) within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of that period of three months.

(9) Where an employment tribunal finds a complaint under subsection (7) well founded it shall make a declaration to that effect and may?—

(a) make an order for reconsideration of the application, or

(b) make an order that the application has been successful and make an award of compensation to be paid by the employer to the worker.

(10) The amount of compensation under subsection (9) shall be such amount, not exceeding the permitted maximum, as the tribunal considers just and equitable in all the circumstances.

(11) For the purposes of subsection (10), the permitted maximum is such number of weeks’ pay as the Department may specify by regulations.". — [Mr Flanagan.]

No 11: After clause 16 insert

"Fixed and regular employment

16F.—(1) There shall be a duty on employers who have continuously employed a zero hours contract worker for a period of 12 weeks to offer the zero hours contract worker fixed and regular working hours contract from the date commencing 12 weeks from his or her first engagement with his or her employer.

(2) Where a zero hours contract worker has not been continuously employed for a period of 12 weeks, there shall be a duty on employers to offer a fixed and regular working hours contract to any such zero hours contract worker who has been employed in at least 12 of the preceding 26 weeks (the reference period).

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) and (2) the Department must by regulations make provision to establish?—

(a) a rate of pay;

(b) a minimum period of hours; and

(c) any other relevant terms and conditions of employment.

(4) The Department must by regulations provide for a zero hours contract worker to make an application to an employment tribunal where a fixed and regular contract under this section is not offered.". — [Mr Flanagan.]

No 12: After clause 16 insert

"Prohibition of exclusivity clauses

16G.—(1) Any term or understanding, written or oral, of a contract or engagement (whether express or implied, and whether formal or informal) that requires a zero hours contract worker to work exclusively for one employer shall be void.

(2) The provisions of subsection (1) shall not apply where the employer can demonstrate a compelling business reason, such as confidentiality or the protection of trade secrets, to justify a contractual requirement that the zero hours contract worker shall work exclusively for the employer in question.". — [Mr Flanagan.]

No 13: After clause 16 insert

"Detriment

16H.—(1) It shall be unlawful for an employer to subject a zero hours contract worker to a detriment by any act or any deliberate failure to act on the ground that the zero hours contract worker?—

(a) is or has been a zero hours contract worker; or

(b) any other condition prescribed by the Department.

(2) A zero hours contract worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that he or she has been subjected to a detriment in contravention of subsection (1).". — [Mr Flanagan.]

No 14: After clause 16 insert

"Unfair dismissal

16I. The dismissal of an employee shall be unfair for the purposes of The Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 if the reason or principal reason for the dismissal is that the employee?—

(a) is or has been a zero hours contract worker; or

(b) any other condition prescribed by the Department.". — [Mr Flanagan.]

No 15: After clause 16 insert

"Continuously employed

16J.—(1) References in this Act to a period of continuous employment are to a period computed in accordance with Chapter III of The Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.

(2) This is subject to the proviso that the words “employee” and “employer” as they appear in Chapter II of The Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 are substituted by the words “worker” and “employer”, as these terms are defined in this Order.

(3) In section 8 of The Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (weeks counted in computing period), after subsection (4) insert?—

'(5) In the case of an employee who is engaged by an employer on a zero hours contract or contracts, any week in which work is performed shall count in computing the worker’s period of employment.

(6) In the case of an employee who is engaged by an employer on a zero hours contract or contracts, any week in which work is not provided by the employer shall be treated as a week falling within subsection (3)(c).

(7) For the purposes of subsections (5) and (6), the terms worker and zero hours contract have the same meaning as in the Employment Act 2016.'.". — [Mr Flanagan.]

No 16: After clause 16 insert

"Proportion of zero hour contracts

16K.—(1) The Department must by regulations set a limit on the number of zero hours contract workers as a proportion of the total number of those employed by an employer.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly.". — [Mr Flanagan.]

No 17: After clause 16 insert

"Interpretation for zero hours provisions

16L.—(1) A person is employed for the purposes of this Act if he or she is engaged by another to provide labour and is not genuinely operating a business on his or her own account.

(2) For the avoidance of doubt, a zero hours contract worker shall be regarded as being employed by an employer on days on which?—

(a) he or she works for that employer, and

(b) he or she does not work for that employer

(3) It shall be for the respondent to show in any legal proceedings that the applicant is not employed.

(4) A person is an employer for the purposes of this Act if he or she engages another to provide labour, and the person engaged is not genuinely operating a business on his or her own account.

(5) A fixed and regular working hours contract is a contract that specifies working hours, and does not require the worker to be available for work for a period that exceeds by 20% the minimum hours specified in the contract.

(6) A worker is a person who is employed.". — [Mr Flanagan.]

No 24: In clause 21, page 14, line 37, after "Article" insert "59A or". — [Ms Lo.]

No 29: In the long title, after "disclosure;" insert

"to make provision for zero hours contracts; ". — [Mr Flanagan.]

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I hope to finish within 10 minutes.

My colleague Stewart Dickson and I are moving amendment No 3 in the hope that it can be an amendment that the whole Assembly can unite on, as it creates the opportunity on a realistic platform from this point onwards for the proportionate regulation of zero-hours contracts. There are many legitimate concerns about those contracts, and it is important that the Assembly takes the opportunity to put in place proportionate regulation that permits them to remain in areas where flexibility for employers is important and where they may work from the perspective of employees while addressing abuse and exploitation.

Opportunities to take forward more detailed proposals over the past year have not been taken. There is an irony that some of the amendments tabled for today reflect the proposals tabled by my colleague the Minister for Employment and Learning. However, they have come far too late in the process for any proper consideration by the Committee and the full Assembly or for further engagement with stakeholders on the proposed way forward. It is important that the Assembly is satisfied that what is proposed will be effective, that the arrangements are not capable of being circumvented by some employers and that there are no unintended consequences.

With respect to those who tabled the amendments, there is no basis on which they can provide that assurance. Also, given that the regulation of zero-hours contracts is a relatively new area of law, there is a strong argument that the bulk of legislation should be provided through regulations, rather than by primary legislation, as, in the event that we need to modify what we are doing, it would be far easier to amend regulations than it would be with the longer time frame and the process involved in primary legislation.

The amendment in my name and that of my colleague Stewart Dickson offers the Assembly the only plausible option to provide a platform on which the proportionate regulation of zero-hours contracts can be taken forward. It will provide the basis on which the next Minister with responsibility for employment law, who, I understand, will be the new Minister for the Economy, can make regulations. Our amendment is not prescriptive about content and gives scope for an open and transparent process in which detailed proposals can come forward and be tested with stakeholders and provide space for engagement with the Committee. Nothing would be taken forward without the agreement of the Executive and then the approval of the Assembly.

The main amendment in our names defines zero-hours and non-contractual zero-hours arrangements and provides a broad enabling power to make regulations for those provisions.

Apart from providing definitions, the clauses are not prescriptive on how zero-hours contracts are to be dealt with in legislation. Instead, they provide for regulations to amend or repeal any statutory provision, including the revision of the definitions if events or circumstances warrant that.

Our second amendment provides that this would be done by affirmative procedure. The contents of the Sinn Féin amendments would be progressed through regulations. Given that an affirmative route would be required both today and in relation to any regulations, nothing would be lost through waiting and taking the opportunity to ensure that we are confident that we are providing the most appropriate and proportionate regulation.

Passing our amendments today would recognise that this is a significant area of public concern and is a focal point for the public discourse. It would also avoid any further delay that would result from the Assembly having to wait for the next opportunity of a relevant employment Bill coming before it.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Yes.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Member's argument is quite contradictory. On the one hand, she says that this power will allow any future Minister, at any time of his or her choosing, to bring regulations forward. Yet the Member has not stipulated when any future Minister will have to bring regulations forward or when they will be made. So we could be sitting here for another one to three years waiting for this issue to be dealt with. Meanwhile there are proposals on the table that could be enacted much more quickly. So whilst the Member says that nothing is being lost by this amendment alone being voted through, on every day that goes by without this issue being addressed, the rights of working people are being eroded, and a small number of employers are allowed to abuse people who are on zero-hours contracts at the minute.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I understand what you are saying, but what we are doing now is setting the path for the Committee and the future Minister to look at this again through regulation. There is no doubt that it is an important issue and that there are concerns about abuse and exploitation. However, this is not the right time to put amendments forward, as we need Committee scrutiny and further consideration. I think that the future Minister will take this on board and bring it forward as soon as possible.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the House take its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time when the next Member to speak will be the Chair of the Employment and Learning Committee, Mr Robin Swann.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions — Justice

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Questions 5 and 10 have been withdrawn.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

1. Mr Swann asked the Minister of Justice what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the closure of Ballymena courthouse does not impact negatively on access to justice for people in the area. (AQO 9668/11-16)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

As I set out in my ministerial statement on 8 February 2016, access to justice is not simply a matter of physical proximity or about having courthouses in every town. In this context, it is about ensuring that court users are treated fairly and have access to appropriate services when they are needed. The closure of six courthouses will not see a reduction in scheduled court sittings, as business will transfer on a like-for-like basis to the new venues, so there is no reason that there would be any negative impact on access to court time.

The remaining courthouses in the estate will ensure that access to justice, within a reasonable travelling distance, is preserved for court users. I welcome the indication from the Lord Chief Justice that the judiciary is prepared to consider the timings for court proceedings and to explore the benefits of a more flexible court sitting day to alleviate any difficulties that individual users may have.

The Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service (NICTS) has invested significantly in improvements to operating models and to the services that it provides to court users, particularly its IT infrastructure and the ability to support video links in all major courthouses. The retained venues are some of our more modern or larger courthouses, which offer advantages for vulnerable victims and witnesses, including better facilities for segregation.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer, in which he used the phrase "physical proximity". During questions on his earlier statement, he told me that there would be no job losses. Will he comment on the effect that the closure of Ballymena courthouse will have on the town — on the solicitors' practices and law offices that are based in the town because of the proximity to the courthouse and on the business that they create for shops, coffee houses and restaurants in the town?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Swann for his supplementary question. A small number of direct Courts Service jobs will move from Ballymena to Antrim. Living between Antrim and Ballymena, I have some knowledge of both towns. I would have thought that a significant number of solicitors' practices, given that they have a variety of interests and do not solely concentrate on business in courts, will continue in Ballymena because it is a significant shopping and market centre. The likelihood of any significant number of jobs moving, other than the small number of direct jobs in the Courts and Tribunals Service, is, I suspect, quite small.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

The Minister will know that a considerable amount of money has been put into Ballymena courthouse in recent years to upgrade its facilities. Rather than leaving the building not fulfilling a function, would he look favourably on creating a community justice centre at Ballymena courthouse or, indeed, given the other facilities around the town, on piloting a drugs court there in future?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I appreciate the Committee Chair's question; indeed, he wrote to me recently about the issue. There are questions about whether it is possible to do alternative work beyond that which is being provided for and whether there is a displacement issue. I have asked officials to look at the Chair's suggestion, but that is a promise to look at the suggestion and not a promise to deliver anything specific at this point.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his answers. There seems to be a lack of clarity about the savings that will be made when the courthouses close. Some people say that, although there will be a saving, the Department will have to pay some money towards what is called "warm storage". Will he outline the exact amount of money that will be saved each year in each courthouse?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I do not have those figures with me. I have given them previously, and I can confirm that all the figures given to me were net of the cost of continuing to maintain businesses until such time as they are disposed of.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Of course, if access to justice for the people in the area really mattered to the Minister, he would not be closing the wonderful, expensively upgraded Ballymena courthouse. For all the platitudes that his actions speak towards, he could not care less about access to a courthouse for the people of Ballymena. Today, when asked how many jobs will be lost, he could not even put a figure on it. Will he at least put a figure on it so that we know?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Along with the usual insults that we expect from Mr Allister, he asks me to answer a question that simply cannot be answered. I do not control the location of solicitors' offices, which are private businesses that locate where they wish. That was the point that I made very specifically to Mr Swann. I do not know whether Mr Allister, with his extensive legal experience, can tell solicitors where they will locate in the future, but I am afraid that I cannot.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

2. Mr McQuillan asked the Minister of Justice how many applications were made to the 2015-16 assets recovery community scheme. (AQO 9669/11-16)

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

7. Mr McKinney asked the Minister of Justice how much has been spent on provision of the assets recovery community scheme in South Belfast in each of the last four years. (AQO 9674/11-16)

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

11. Mr Hilditch asked the Minister of Justice for his assessment of how funding from the assets recovery community scheme is distributed. (AQO 9678/11-16)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 2, 7 and 11 together.

First and foremost, I believe that this is a good news story. In 2011, we changed the law to keep recovered criminal asset money in Northern Ireland. Since it was launched in 2011, the assets recovery community scheme (ARCS) has awarded nearly £3.5 million to a variety of projects. This funding is money that has been taken out of the hands of criminals and returned to the community. It is clear to me from witnessing a number of projects at first hand that they make a real difference. ARCS is a popular scheme and, perhaps influenced in part by the current economic environment, is greatly oversubscribed. In the 2015-16 competition, 75 applications were received, and the available funding allowed awards to 23 groups. The recently launched 2016-17 competition has received around 150 applications, and their assessment is under way.

Applications are assessed individually against the criteria for the scheme. Although submitted via policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs), they are not considered geographically. Those meeting the criteria are then scored on areas including evidence of need, actions proposed and value for money. These scorings are reviewed by a panel of senior officials before I reach a final decision.

Details cannot be given about allocations in South Belfast, as most projects extend across the city. In the last four years, projects in the Belfast area have received in the region of £170,000. In the current round, there are 30 applications from the Belfast area.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, I do not know whether you have the figures with you, but can you give a specific breakdown of how many groups applied from East Londonderry? Will you give us a flavour of the support that the groups got?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am afraid that I did not come with the full detail, but I will happily write to Mr McQuillan with the details for his constituency. Certainly, at the point when awards are made, the full details will be published. Part of the issue, of course, is that we are not sure, from month to month, how much will be received through the scheme, so there will be, in effect, a first list, and a reserve list should additional money become available.

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

The Minister will be aware of the increase in burglaries in South Belfast in the recent past. Is any consideration being given to directing moneys at deterrence or awareness or to protecting the victims of such burglaries?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I can assure Mr McKinney that the principal aim behind the scheme is to fight crime, the fear of crime and antisocial behaviour. The issues that he has highlighted on a number of occasions about burglaries in his constituency clearly come well within the scheme. At this stage, I do not have details of the 30 Belfast applications and what they might be, but they are being assessed. If there are schemes that score highly enough, they will certainly get a grant.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

I should probably declare a non-pecuniary interest as an official of a midnight soccer scheme that avails itself of some of the money. I acknowledge the work of the scheme and congratulate those responsible on its implementation. I have seen that work at first hand, which is done for the benefit of the young people who participate. Can the Minister give a commitment to its future in terms of length of time or how it could be enhanced going forward?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I can certainly give a commitment that, as long as I am Minister, the scheme will continue. Arrangements are going ahead for the scheme to run in 2016-17. We should be very clear that this was money that we only got after devolution. Prior to devolution, the half of the money that goes to the agencies responsible came back to the agencies within Northern Ireland, but the half that we distribute in community grants was simply not available in Northern Ireland. That, in itself, is good news. It is £3·5 million in community grants that would not have been made otherwise. I cannot imagine that there are any prospects under which the scheme would not continue. The difficulty is that we have to spend the money in the year we receive it and it is not as flexible as one would hope it might be.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answers thus far and welcome the scheme. One of the objectives of the scheme from the outset was the prevention of crime and the reduction of fear of crime. Can the Minister outline how that has been achieved to date?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I could probably stand here all afternoon doing that, Mr Speaker, but you would cut me off after two minutes if I gave some of the examples. For example, Mr Hilditch has just highlighted the midnight soccer scheme that is run in a number of areas and which deters young people from getting engaged in antisocial behaviour. I have seen schemes that are directly aimed at providing crime-fighting materials such as door chains, spyglasses and so on, to older and vulnerable people. So, there are a variety of ways in which confidence can be provided and in which crime can be fought, both in the sense of deterrence and direct provision of whatever resources are needed to make it more difficult for crimes to be committed. It really is a matter of a variety of imaginative ideas coming in from community groups, through PCSPs right across Northern Ireland and I think that it has been very positive in that respect.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Minister outline the number of groups that work with people who have disabilities and special needs and which have been successful in applying to the assets recovery community scheme?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am afraid that, no, I cannot give that level of detail at Question Time. Groups that work with people with special needs is a fairly wide category. I have no doubt that some of them are included within a general categorisation. If Mr McMullan has a specific question and wants to write to me, I will certainly answer it.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

3. Mr Beggs asked the Minister of Justice, following the recent decision to reduce the number of local courthouses, what action he is taking to improve the access to the public reporting of court judgements. (AQO 9670/11-16)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The role played by the media in reporting cases and their outcomes is an essential component of the principle of open justice. Access to courts by the media and the public is not affected by a reduction in the number of courthouses. In this digital age, it is possible for reporters to submit articles directly from courthouses or to avail themselves of other technologies, such as Skype. Wi-Fi access in courts outside Belfast has also been factored into the Courts and Tribunals Service future ICT modernisation programme.

NICTS provides a specific online service for the media, allowing them to access full case details seven days in advance of the hearing. This, in addition to the services of press teams in NICTS and the office of the Lord Chief Justice, has reduced the need for reporters to attend court for every single hearing, which clearly frees up staff time.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

As well as reporting the decisions of courts, I think it is important that the public is aware of the cases themselves. With the centralisation of courts, there will of course be no courtroom within the Mid and East Antrim Borough Council area. That will make it more difficult for local journalists to report on cases. Does the Minister accept that, whilst the reports may be online, it will be more difficult for local journalists and people to access that information if it is not near to them? Has consideration been given to putting courts online, so that the public can follow what is said in a courtroom, just like the Assembly Committees or local councils?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Beggs's latter point, though interesting, takes us into a very different area, which is around the whole issue of putting courts online. You will know that that has been done in only a very limited way in Scotland or in the Supreme Court when giving decisions. I think that we are long way from seeing the benefits of that. I must say that, living not that far away in the council area adjacent to that of Mr Beggs, I see no difficulty in my local newspapers reporting the activities of either Mid and East Antrim Borough Council or Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council, where reporters have to travel a bit. I cannot therefore see that they would have much problem reporting on the courts.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Given the success of the televising of some court proceedings on the mainland, is it not something that the Lord Chief Justice should be encouraged to facilitate in Northern Ireland, at least for the Court of Appeal, so that the public are able to see exactly what happens in the courts rather than having to rely on a filter from journalists outside the building or, indeed, the print media? That would be a good way of opening up greater access to the courts.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I certainly think that Mr Givan raises an interesting point when he talks about the Court of Appeal giving judgements. However, I am not sure, given the time that it can take for a judgement in the Court of Appeal, that the public would necessarily see everything. They might well have something filtered through television editors rather than television reporters selectively reporting from the street outside. The issue merits consideration, but I must confess that it is not my first priority in managing the courts at this stage.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his answers and for his acknowledgement that reporting in court cases is very important and may even be a deterrent to further crime. Can he advise the House whether any media or press organisations responded to the consultation on court rationalisation?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The answer to Mr McCarthy's question is fairly simple, Mr Speaker: no media organisation responded to the consultation on court closures. I think that one raised the potential closure of Enniskillen, when a local newspaper representative talked about travelling times for journalists. However, as Members will recall, Enniskillen will remain as a hearing centre, so that problem has been addressed. There were certainly no formal responses from any media organisation.

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

4. Mr A Maginness asked the Minister of Justice what assistance is being provided to prisoners to better prepare them for their return to society. (AQO 9671/11-16)

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

9. Ms Lo asked the Minister of Justice for his assessment of the Prime Minister's statement on 8 February 2016 that prisons should be places of care, not just punishment, where the environment is conducive to rehabilitation and mending lives. (AQO 9676/11-16)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will take questions 4 and 9 together. Both questions go to the heart of what prison is for. I have often said that people are sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment. Recognising that the vast majority of prisoners will return to our community, we have done much in recent years to ensure that we use the time that people spend in prison to address the types of behaviour that put them in prison, to rehabilitate them and to prepare them for return to society.

In September last year, I published 'Supporting Change: A Strategic Approach to Desistance', setting out my Department's commitment to provide a flexible, person-centred approach that reduces reoffending. The Prison Service contributes to the strategy by making rehabilitation central to how prisons operate and by providing opportunities for people to change and make a positive contribution to their families and to wider society.

The prisoner development model supports, challenges and motivates people throughout their time in prison. Individual risks, needs and strengths are identified so that a structured, tailored personal development plan is agreed with the prisoner to assist them as they prepare for release. When appropriate, people in custody may also participate in programmes to address the distorted thinking and attitudes that led to their offending behaviour, thereby reducing the likelihood of future offending.

Belfast Metropolitan College and North West Regional College provide a wide curriculum of learning and skills across prison establishments, all of which will result in an accredited outcome. The Prison Service also works in partnership with employers to provide work experience and job-sampling opportunities for prisoners prior to their release.

In all those ways, we have put rehabilitation and transformational change at the heart of the Prison Service in Northern Ireland. That remains the direction of our prison service, and the Prime Minister's recent statement suggests that those in England and Wales are now on the same path.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I call Ms — sorry, Mr — Alban Maginness for his supplementary question. I beg your pardon.

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

Not at all, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his answer. Progress has certainly been made in relation to providing the means for the rehabilitation of offenders, but much more work needs to be done. Will the Minister outline any plans or ideas that he may have on expanding the area of employment that ex-offenders are able to avail themselves of in order to provide for their full integration back into the community?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Maginness puts his finger on one of the key issues to do with rehabilitation, which is the opportunity for employment or, rather, constructive, worthwhile activity. We have certainly seen some significant improvements, particularly at Hydebank Wood, but we have also seen significant opportunities for employment and voluntary service based at Magilligan in recent times. We have a number of enterprises based in our prisons that employ people in prison, as they leave prison and for a short period afterwards. The Thinking Cup Cafe and Book Reserve in south Belfast, which works with young men who have family responsibilities and assists them to get into a culture of employment as they leave, is the right kind of example. I am also conscious of the fact that, despite the significant increase in that work, there remain prisoners who do not have the opportunities either in learning and skills or direct work. It is an area where we need to continue to work with some of our voluntary sector partners outside to get the best possible opportunities.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his response and commend him on his determination and his work to reform the criminal system, focusing on rehabilitation and the reduction of reoffending. Does he believe that the prison reform programme has made significant changes that will improve outcomes for prisoners and wider society?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Yes, I certainly do. We are conscious that, this week, we are due to see the latest update on the Criminal Justice Inspection report on Maghaberry prison. However, alongside some of the short-term difficulties we have seen there, we have seen significant issues. For example, the last meeting of the prison review oversight group signed off on 36 — 90% — of the 40 recommendations made by the prison review team, many of which are about embedding long-term structural change. That is very significant. We have seen massive issues in refresh and improved training for staff across a variety of grades. Hydebank Wood College is the first secure college anywhere in the United Kingdom. We have seen the reopening of Burren House as a step-down facility for men and the opening of Murray House as a step-down facility for women. There are a variety of plans — obviously subject to capital, if anybody wishes to speak to the Finance Minister — to develop all three prisons. There is the very significant partnership with the two colleges in the provision of accredited courses on the same basis as it would happen outside. There is the work that I mentioned on the desistance strategy and on rolling out the Inspire programme for women. All of this shows significant advances in recent years that, I believe, are now part of the culture of the Prison Service and will make a real difference in the years ahead.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

6. Mr Buchanan asked the Minister of Justice how he is improving the safety of prison officers at HMP Maghaberry. (AQO 9673/11-16)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Prison Service continues to maintain a clear focus on the safety of staff. The Maghaberry senior management team has been refreshed and strengthened, and unit managers are now based in the residential areas to provide visible leadership and support for staff. Staff training and the rotation of staff working in the more stressful areas is ongoing. The introduction of a new core day for prisoners, with more appropriate mealtimes and longer periods outside residential units, reduces prisoner frustration and provides a safer environment for all. Other measures put in place with regard to safety are the visible patrolling of prisoner recreation areas by staff and the piloting of body-worn cameras. The use of these cameras by staff has clearly led to a lessening in verbal abuse and a reduction in aggression directed at officers. The safety of staff and prisoners remains under constant review.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his response. Will he advise how many officers are currently off work due to injury on duty and what support services are offered to them?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I cannot give the immediate stats for the numbers who are off work today for injury on duty, but there are solid arrangements in place to provide support for officers, including counselling services and line managers keeping in touch and offering assistance in dealing with sickness issues. All of that is carried out in connection with the general processes outlined in the Civil Service handbook but recognising that prison officers are in a particularly difficult place compared with many civil servants. That support has shown that the number who are off on sick can be reduced, as has happened in recent months, and that is good for all concerned.

Adrian Cochrane-Watson (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. Minister, do you have any plans to meet, or have you met, the Prison Officers' Association on these issues?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

As I said at, I think, my last Question Time, I have not had a recent specific meeting on these issues with the Prison Officers' Association, but I meet it whenever I am requested to do so.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

8. Mrs Dobson asked the Minister of Justice what steps he is taking to combat cross-border criminality. (AQO 9675/11-16)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The fight against cross-border criminality is principally an operational matter for the two police forces and other law enforcement agencies, coordinated through the new cross-jurisdictional joint agency task force. The terms of reference for the task force were agreed at a ministerial trilateral meeting held in Dublin on 21 December. A strategic oversight group will be jointly chaired by the deputy commissioner for operations of an Garda Síochána and the PSNI assistant chief constable for crime operations. Other members will be senior representatives of other relevant law enforcement agencies. The joint chairs have already met twice, and the first full task force meeting will be in early March. An operations coordination group will be chaired by chief superintendents from the PSNI and an Garda Síochána. Membership will comprise senior operational representatives from a wider group of relevant law enforcement agencies to be decided by the group.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I am aware of increases in criminal activity, particularly in Louth and Dundalk, which is leading to a bleed across the border, with the A1 dual carriageway and housing estates, including those in Banbridge, becoming particularly vulnerable. What reassurances can the Minister give that the PSNI, particularly in Banbridge, has the adequate resources to effectively address that issue and bring those responsible to justice?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I can guarantee only that the PSNI is provided with the resources that are available for me to provide to it. Members will be aware that the PSNI budget was significantly protected for next year compared with other aspects of the justice system. However, the precise allocation of resources across individual districts is a matter for the Chief Constable, not me.

I note Mrs Dobson's particular point relating to cross-border criminality. There is no doubt that the recent upsurge of drug-related crime in Dublin has led to a reallocation of resources by an Garda Síochána, which may well have had some effect in border areas. It is important that we see the arrangements continuing between the two police services. The joint agency task force will enable better coordination between the two.

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

I thank the Minister for his answer, particularly the latter points. Minister, you will be aware that there are some 88 gangs here in the North dealing drugs. Of course, we saw the recent gangland violence in Dublin. What reassurance and information can you give to the House around the tie-up and whether the models of Mafia-type violence in Dublin will spill onto our streets here in the North?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I can give the House the assurance that, on the information that I receive about there being very close coordination between the two police services, very good work is being done, particularly with the new structure of the joint agency task force, to tackle criminal activity.

Mrs Kelly referred to the number of gangs dealing in drugs. We should also be aware, of course, that many of them deal in a variety of different crimes. That is why it was a particular pleasure for me to see last week the very good work being done by HMRC in tackling diesel fraud. The new marker is extremely effective in catching vehicles that were using laundered diesel. Even in cases where the old marker has been laundered out, the new marker shows quite clearly. The good news of that is that it means that we are likely to see a reduction in diesel laundering, with all the effects on public health and pollution associated with it, which her colleague the Environment Minister will be well aware of. The bad news is that that probably means that some of those gangs will turn to other issues. We need to ensure that the police response is adequate on both sides of the border to deal with that.

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

12. Mr Attwood asked the Minister of Justice for his assessment of the comments of Lord Justice Weir, during the recent review of inquest cases, on the failures of the British Army and Ministry of Defence to provide disclosure information, identify the whereabouts of former soldiers and to make former soldiers available for interview. (AQO 9679/11-16)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am aware of previous criticism of the Ministry of Defence regarding the disclosure of material and making former soldiers available for interview for a number of legacy inquests in Northern Ireland. I am also aware of the impact that those issues can have on the ability to progress legacy inquests and on public confidence.

I wrote to the Secretary of State on 15 June 2015 asking her to raise the issue of tracing retired military witnesses directly with the Secretary of State for Defence. I asked that he consider what steps might be taken or whether additional resources could be deployed by the MOD to address the problem that the coroners have encountered with retired military witnesses. In response, the Secretary of State for Defence advised that he is conscious of the importance of securing the full participation of the widest possible range of witnesses and that the MOD would do all it reasonably could to facilitate their engagement.

I appreciate that response. However, it is clear that much more work is required in the identification and tracing of retired military witnesses and in communication with them regarding participation in the inquest process.

I also note the involvement of the MOD in the preliminary hearings on legacy inquests before Lord Justice Weir recently. Those 43 inquests with an MOD involvement represent a significant proportion of the legacy inquests that remain outstanding. I trust that the MOD will respond fully to the requests for information that Lord Justice Weir made in those hearings.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

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

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

T1. Mr Rogers asked the Minister of Justice what discussions he has had with his counterpart in Dublin to address the policy and legislative concerns raised by the Chief Constable of the PSNI following the welcome before Christmas that he and the Garda Commissioner gave to the idea of closer cross-border cooperation. (AQT 3521/11-16)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Rogers for that question. I frequently discuss with the Irish Justice Minister— I think probably at every meeting I have with her — the issues of operational support for the two police services. I know that there had been discussions ongoing very recently between officials about the refresh to the cross-border policing strategy, which I hope to be able to launch within the next few weeks, subject to timing arrangements at this stage largely because of the elections to Dáil Éireann. I believe that good work has been done on that, but it is important that we get the public statement of the relaunch of that strategy.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I call Mr Chris Hazzard, if he has recovered his breath. Sorry, Seán still has a supplementary to ask. That gives you a rest, Chris

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

Thanks, Mr Speaker. A lot of communities have suffered because of cross-border crime, none more so than the farming community through the loss of livestock and machinery. What is being done to address that?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Rogers is now taking me into the direct responsibilities of the operational cross-border group. Members will be aware of the very significant amount of work that has been done in support of trailer marking and a variety of issues relating to Farmwatch and so on. I hope that, in the next few days, we will see a further announcement on the good work being done.

Most of that has been led by individual PSCPs as they look to see what their local needs are. The precise issue of the operational cross-border arrangements rests with the two leading police officers, although Members will also be aware that a number of other bodies, such as the DARD veterinary service, have been suggested for inclusion in the operational subgroup to ensure that we get not just the policing services and the key agencies but some agencies that have not always appeared on the criminal justice list involved in ensuring that we tackle the variety of different crimes that operate on a cross-border basis.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

T2. Mr Hazzard asked the Minister of Justice, given his recent statement about the court estate, whether his Department will now look at the remaining courts, the services that they offer and, particularly in the case of Downpatrick courthouse, whether the potential exists to introduce additional services. (AQT 3522/11-16)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

There I was thinking that, when I made the courts announcement, Mr Hazzard did a good job by not just making a plea for his local courthouse. The simple answer is that there are no plans to take additional services into Downpatrick at this stage. On the basis of transport and communications links, Downpatrick is seen as serving a fairly discrete area. It is a bit like the point that I made in response to Mr Ross, which was that, no doubt, Members will suggest all kinds of different projects that might be run in particular courthouses, but we need to ensure that we get the balance right and that we manage the costs right, with a lot of the new proposals, such as on problem-solving courts, being handled in the best way to provide an efficient service.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. I want to thank him for giving special acknowledgement to the very rural needs, nature and aspects of South Down, which are why the Downpatrick court exists. I wish the Health Minister would do likewise. Perhaps there is the potential for a refurbishment grant or some sort of resource to be made available to bring Downpatrick courthouse up to the standard that we expect.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Members are well aware of DOJ's difficult budget situation. I have no doubt that the Courts and Tribunals Service is keeping all its buildings under review, but I have not, at this stage, seen any specific proposals for renovation in Downpatrick. I suspect that the reality of the next financial year or two is that it will be unlikely that there will be anything significant within that timescale.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

T3. Mr Milne asked the Minister of Justice for an update on recruitment to the coroner investigator posts. (AQT 3523/11-16)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am afraid that I cannot give any direct additional information on that. It is safe to say that Members are aware that a recruitment process is under way, but I am not sure of the exact detail of where we are with the recruitment of those persons.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas don Aire go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his short answer. Why have the job criteria for the new coroner investigators been changed from what was sought and recommended by the coroner in the first place?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Specific issues regarding the appropriate balance of skills that would be required for the coroner investigator posts and the knowledge that the individuals would have of the operation of the justice system in Northern Ireland were looked at. That is why the criteria sit as they do. On the evidence that is put to me, I am satisfied that it will be possible to recruit people who have the appropriate knowledge but are not in any way compromised in carrying out the work that will be required in the new posts.

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

Earlier, the Minister answered a question from my colleague Alex Attwood about the need to establish the truth from the past. I am sorry that there was not time for a supplementary. Perhaps I can use this opportunity to pursue the issue.

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

T4. Mr Dallat asked the Minister of Justice, in view of the reluctance of the MOD and the British Army to make any attempt to help the disclosures from our terrible past, whether he believes it is now the responsibility of the British Prime Minister to take the issue in hand and deal with it. (AQT 3524/11-16)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I certainly accept the point that Mr Dallat makes about the historical position. Following the letter from the Secretary of State for Defence to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on the back of my query, I think that we have seen an improvement in the help being offered by the MOD. However, that is where I hinted that we needed to ensure that it was carried through into reality. For example, we have seen it instituting better administrative checks on records, including pension records, to look at potential witnesses. We have also seen the agreement that the Royal Military Police (RMP) will use its policing powers, if necessary and possible, to assist the process. That would mean, obviously, that the RMP would have policing powers to go into liaising with outside agencies beyond simply trawling through MOD records. I think that there is some progress implied; the important issue is whether the comments made by Lord Justice Weir are taken into account by the MOD representatives and carried through in full.

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

The Minister will be aware that I come from a constituency and neighbour a constituency where more than 20 people from both communities lost their life in rather strange circumstances. Does the Minister agree that the time for sending letters here, there and everywhere is over and that the British Government should acknowledge their involvement in that and pay the cost of finding out and telling the truth about what happened to our loved ones?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I certainly agree that the Government have a duty, as do other agencies and individuals, to assist in finding the truth about what happened in the case of the 55 legacy inquests awaiting hearing in courts in Northern Ireland. That includes people talking about their involvement in these issues as well as the more bureaucratic approach that we were talking about earlier with regard to finding potential witnesses and making them amenable. There is work to be done by agencies and a moral obligation on agencies and individuals to assist victims.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

T5. Mr Allen asked the Minister of Justice to outline the discussions he has had with the PSNI on tackling burglaries in East Belfast. (AQT 3525/11-16)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I have not specifically discussed burglaries in East Belfast with the PSNI because that is very much an operational issue for the Chief Constable. Whilst we discuss general policing matters, we do not discuss that level of operational detail.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Constituents from throughout East Belfast have come to me with concerns about the rise in burglaries in the constituency. Will budget constraints have any impact on the PSNI's ability to tackle such crime?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Allen for the question. At every Question Time that I have done in the last year, I have highlighted the fact that budgetary restrictions are being imposed on the PSNI. It has to deal with significant and severe crimes or threats of crime, with the result that there has been reprioritisation and, therefore, an inevitable slight increase in burglaries. The statistics show a significant decrease in the number of burglaries in Northern Ireland over the last seven or eight years. In that context, much though we might wish it, we cannot expect an ever-decreasing level of crime, and I suspect that, if there is reprioritisation because of budget restrictions being imposed on the Department of Justice, it is inevitable that there will be some increase in burglaries.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

T6. Mr Newton asked the Minister of Justice to confirm whether those organisations that are involved in the restorative justice system enjoy his confidence. (AQT 3526/11-16)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I can go only on the basis that the two key restorative justice organisations are fully accredited and inspected by Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, along with statutory elements in the justice system and the reports to me are favourable.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

Given that those organisations enjoy the Minister's confidence, what plans does he have for their development to increase their competence and professionalism so that they might provide an even better service to the justice system?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Given that we are talking about voluntary organisations whose direct line of contact is not with the Department as much as with the Police Service, other agencies and voluntary sector partners, I am not sure that it is the Department's responsibility to enhance their training. It is, however, the Department's job to encourage better joined-up working, and I believe that we are doing that to ensure better professionalism among all those who work in the justice system by encouragement but not by direction.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

T7. Mr Buchanan asked the Minister of Justice whether he is satisfied with the prison officer to prisoner ratio in Maghaberry prison. (AQT 3527/11-16)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

At present, there is clearly a reduced number of prison officers, which is why one of the key issues that are being focused on by the governor and the senior management team is sickness absence to ensure that, when possible, officers are at work. A recruitment exercise is being carried out. We need to be careful that we do not automatically assume that the prison supervision ratios that applied some years ago are necessarily appropriate. Reference to ratios of one prison officer to so many prisoners in particular areas does not represent the reality of the different threat levels in different parts of Maghaberry and different kinds of prisoners in different parts of the prison. The issue is at this stage is to ensure that there are appropriate but not excessive levels of supervision in every area, ensuring that the most difficult areas receive significantly higher supervision levels.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I call Mr Buchanan for a quick supplementary question.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

Does the Minister agree that the lack of prison officers is the reason for so many being off as a result of injuries received while on duty?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

No. I do not agree that that is the position. In recent months, a cultural shift has led to many more officers being on duty and ensured that prisoners are being managed better, in a way that reduces tension and is less likely to lead to injury to officers or other prisoners.

Oral Answers to Questions — Regional Development

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

1. Mr Lunn asked the Minister for Regional Development for an update on the timescale for improvements to the A24 road proposed at the Temple and Ballynahinch. (AQO 9682/11-16)

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

Two schemes are being developed for the A24. I am pleased to advise that my Department has invited tenders for the proposed junction improvement scheme on the A24 Carryduff Road at Temple. Construction is expected to commence in spring 2016, subject to the successful completion of the tendering and land acquisition processes.

A public inquiry into the proposed A24 Ballynahinch bypass concluded on 27 January. The inspector will now consider all the evidence and prepare a report, which will normally include synopses of the Department, supporters and objectors' cases, details of related questions and answers, the inspector’s considerations and the inspector’s recommendations. It is likely that, as normal, the completed report will be submitted to the Department for consideration within several months. My officials will then address the inspector’s recommendations and prepare a report for my consideration. Having considered all of the issues, I will decide how the scheme should proceed. The decision will be conveyed in a departmental statement accompanied by the publication of the inspector’s report. Subject to a satisfactory outcome, the notice of intention to proceed and the direction order will also be published. Progression to construction remains subject to the approval of the business case, clearing the statutory procedures and funding being made available to my Department.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for what was, effectively, an announcement. It will be very good news for all users of that junction, particularly those who try to turn right from the side roads. In view of the accident history at that point, it is very welcome news indeed. In fact, I can hardly think of a question to ask her. You set out the progression, but when do you expect construction to start? Have you any idea of the timescale?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. I, too, am very aware of that junction as it borders on my constituency, and I use the route often. I am also aware of the collisions there. All tenders returned by the closing date will be assessed, and the most economically advantageous will be identified. Funding has been set aside for the scheme, and it is hoped that it will commence in the spring.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I welcome what the Minster has said so far about the scheme at the Temple crossroads, which is an extremely dangerous crossroads. My father witnessed a fatal accident at that junction. Will the Minister outline the approximate cost of the scheme? More importantly, what additional features will it have?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. The cost is estimated to be in the region of £1·25 million. As I said to Mr Lunn, funding has been set aside for the scheme. There will be a four-leg roundabout at the junction, and, in addition to the junction improvement, there will be road realignment, a new footway on the approach from Lisburn, a 34-space park-and-share facility and traffic islands.

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

Thank you, Minister, for your answers thus far. I, too, welcome that good news. Can you be specific about when you expect to get the findings from the public inquiry into the Ballynahinch bypass?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I am hopeful that I will hear about the public inquiry quite soon. I am not clear on whether that will be before purdah. As for the earliest date for construction, it is possible that it could be early 2018. The estimated cost associated with that is around £40 million to £50 million. Again, it is subject to that funding being made available.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Minister has confirmed that improving the safety of the junction at the Temple is the key consideration. Can she give me an assurance that the same criteria and consideration will be applied to the Woodgreen junction on the A26 in my constituency? Just 10 days ago, we had another fatality of a young person at that junction. Can we have the same safety provision there?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. I take this opportunity to express my sympathy and condolences to the family of the young woman who was tragically killed on the A26. You will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the circumstances of that tragedy. However, there has been a review of safety around the A26. That review included an examination of all the collisions that have occurred in the last three years, up to March 2015, for which details are available. Transport NI officials have also met PSNI staff — traffic safety officers — on site to discuss possible engineering and enforcement measures that not only seek to reduce the severity of collisions but should reduce the likelihood of them happening in the first instance. I have been informed that the review is substantially complete and will make a number of recommendations for action along that section of the A26, including at the site of the most recent tragedy.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

2. Mr McCallister asked the Minister for Regional Development for an update on her Department's budget for road maintenance. (AQO 9683/11-16)

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

The budget for the Department for Infrastructure, as agreed by the Executive in January, provided a capital allocation of £46 million for roads structural maintenance, which I welcome. This will allow for increased expenditure on maintaining the condition of the existing network and reduce the cost of maintenance in future years. However, capital structural maintenance is only one element of the roads maintenance programme. A number of roads maintenance activities are funded through the resource budget. These include street lighting inspection and maintenance, pothole repairs, grass cutting, gully emptying, and weed spraying. These are important aspects of road maintenance in ensuring public safety.

A resource allocation of £20 million was provided for roads maintenance in Budget 2016-17, which again I welcome. However, a 5·7% reduction on DFI's overall resource budget presents a challenging position for delivering services across the Department. Together with my officials, I am taking forward a detailed analysis of all activities that impact on the resource budget for DFI. This will ensure that budget is allocated to maximise service delivery across all aspects of the Department, which will obviously include road maintenance activities. I expect this review to conclude in the coming weeks, at which point budgets will be confirmed to all business areas.

In the current year, 2015-16, the budget for capital structural maintenance is currently £39 million. In addition, my Department received a resource allocation of £16·5 million in the November monitoring round to enable road maintenance activities, including winter service, to be provided. This has enabled a reduction in the backlog of street lighting and pothole repairs and additional gully emptying to be undertaken.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. No doubt the Minister will be aware of the extremely wet winter we have been having and the toll that that is taking, in particular on our rural roads. South Down is suffering as much as anywhere. What role and action is the Minister taking, and how much pressure is she exerting, in Transport NI's identification of necessary repairs and of erosion and excess water? Can she give an undertaking that potholes will be identified quickly and filled in with hot bitumen, rather than the cheaper cold bitumen, as it lasts significantly longer? Does her Department —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I think you have had enough questions.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I was just going to give her a chance to comment on any claims against —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Please sit down before I tell you to sit down.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. Obviously, he has a great deal of experience with pothole repairs. I could nearly offer him a job in Transport NI.

The Member will be aware that there is a duty on my Department to maintain all public roads in a reasonable condition. That is subject to available resources. The maintenance standards for safety are in place, and they are designed to ensure a consistent level of service. Standards and procedures have been established for the frequency of road inspections. They depend very much on traffic volumes and specific response times for the repair of defects. I, like everyone else in the Chamber, will be aware that there have been issues with response times, but it very much depends on the severity of the defect. The time taken can range from it being repaired within one day to it being put into a programme of works for the next time that the route is having substantial repairs done to it. Those systems and procedures have been tested by the courts.

Regarding the type of bitumen that is used, the Member has shown a certain degree of expertise. My Department carries out repairs using methods that are recognised by the industry. The traditional repair method is to use hot bitumen and spray injection patching. On occasions, as the Member indicated, where high-priority repairs are required, the cold layers will be used, but that is a temporary measure and is in place only until further works can be carried out in the area. Be assured, however, that road maintenance is something that I take seriously, and I have been trying to get additional money for it.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I appreciate that the Minister took up position with road maintenance at a low under the previous Minister, but has she been able to generate additional funds from her budget as we come to the end of this financial year to put towards road maintenance?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

Since coming into office, I have been focused on the appropriate use of the remaining budget and on ensuring that internal efficiencies have been made. All my Department's budget lines and areas of expenditure have been reviewed to ensure that as much money as possible has been available for high-priority activities such as patching and street-lighting maintenance. We have looked at removing all non-essential expenditure on administration, and that has generated savings. Staff overtime has been significantly reduced, being permitted only when it is required to deliver prioritised services.

Additional savings have been generated from the voluntary exit scheme through a combination of increased staff numbers and staff leaving earlier than originally planned. The relatively mild winter has also allowed some funding that had been set aside for winter service to be redirected. I am pleased to say that, since the beginning of January, an additional £3·2 million of resource funding and £2 million of capital funding has been reprioritised for essential maintenance activities, such as street lighting, patching, gully emptying, road markings and resurfacing. That is good news. It will help the local economy, as well as local councillors and MLAs.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for the funding that has been rolled out in recent weeks.

To continue the theme of potholes, I came across one yesterday that had completely wrecked a car. I have, however, been given an undertaking that it will be fixed this week. The Quarry Products Association (QPA) states that there is a £50 million shortfall in the current road maintenance budget. What is your response to that?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I do not think that we need the QPA to tell us that there has been a shortfall; we are all acutely aware of the challenges in our constituencies. I have regular conversations with the QPA, and it is aware that, since coming into office, I have bid for additional money and have tried to do the best that I can in a very short time. I know that that adds pressures to the industry. It adds to pressure on families when workers have to go across the water to find work. Again, that impacts on our local economy. It is my job and that of others in the Assembly to ensure that we prioritise money in the right direction, and road maintenance is one of those areas.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The road maintenance budget allocated by the Executive has been inadequate and has relied on in-year monitoring for many years, but the Quarry Products Association and, indeed, the Northern Ireland Audit Office have highlighted how important it is to carry out timely repairs and resurfacing or we will end up patching the patches and wasting money endlessly. Has the Minister recognised the strategic importance of road maintenance? What assessment has been made so that we get the balance right between new build and road maintenance? Can we afford to maintain our existing roads? It appears not. What does the Minister say?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. Having held this position before, his party will be acutely aware of the challenges in relation to that. It is well known that a stitch in time saves nine, and it is important to put as much money as possible into the maintenance of our roads. A study says that we need to put in approximately £141 million per year to sustain our network. There is a backlog, and there will continue to be a backlog, but it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that money is focused on this area.

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

3. Mr A Maginness asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline the discussions her Department has had with stakeholders and farming groups living along the proposed A5 dual carriageway route. (AQO 9684/11-16)

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

There has been an extensive process of consultation with all those affected by the A5 western transport corridor scheme since its inception in 2008. It has taken a number of forms, including a number of public exhibitions at key design stages; regular updates to directly affected landowners through meetings and by letter at key stages in the development of the scheme; and formal consultation with over 30 statutory authorities and organisations as part of the studies and assessments that have been undertaken during the preparation of the orders and environmental statement for the scheme. That includes the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency and the Loughs Agency. In addition, the scheme has a dedicated project website — www.a5wtc.com — and an 0845 telephone contact line. The website has supported the overall consultation strategy for the project, providing an additional means by which statutory, public and private stakeholders have been given access to scheme updates and announcements.

My officials are not aware of farming groups living along the proposed A5 dual carriageway route, although some landowners have chosen to involve the Ulster Farmers' Union. Officials have met the Ulster Farmers' Union generally and as and when requested by individual landowners. I also met the Ulster Farmers' Union only last week to discuss the A5 scheme and the Land Acquisition and Compensation (Amendment) Bill. In December, I invited the landowners' agents to meet me to discuss their and landowners' concerns about the scheme.

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

I thank the Minister for her detailed answer. Is she fully satisfied that everything has been covered in relation to consultation? If not, you could subsequently come across unexpected roadblocks, if I may put it that way, in the development of the scheme. That must be avoided at all costs. Is the Minister fully satisfied that the necessary consultation has taken place?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. As you will be aware, I announced the start of a new set of consultations on the new draft statutory orders and new environmental statement for the scheme. The current consultation exercise formally commenced on 16 February and will conclude on 4 April.

It is likely that that could lead to another public inquiry into the scheme. As a result, we have tentatively programmed this in for autumn 2016. It is very much subject to the completion of the procedures, and moving forward from there. It is difficult at this stage to anticipate what may come up during those consultations, but I am certainly keen to ensure that as many issues as possible are resolved in advance of a public inquiry.

Alastair Patterson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As the Minister noted, we will soon see the Land Acquisition and Compensation (Amendment) Bill passed, which will bring parity for those in Northern Ireland affected by projects such as the A5. Will the Minister ensure that measures are in place to maintain parity, should there be further enhancements in the level of compensation awarded in England and Wales in the future?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question and for the fact that he recognised that we have moved forward with this legislation, which has been widely welcomed. At this stage, I am unaware of the detail of what may be brought in across the water, but I will certainly advise my officials and ask that that be considered while we are going through the process of the Bill.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

4. Ms P Bradley asked the Minister for Regional Development whether her Department has considered proposals for a pedestrian crossing at the junction of Ballyclare Road, Ballyhenry Road and Manse Road in Newtownabbey. (AQO 9685/11-16)

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

My Department has no current proposals to provide a pedestrian crossing at that roundabout. The layout already includes facilities to assist pedestrians crossing, including pedestrian refuge islands with lowered kerbs, along with tactile paving for the visually impaired. However, I am aware that a site meeting between Transport NI officials and local elected representatives has been arranged for later this month to discuss difficulties that a disabled resident is experiencing when crossing at that junction. The meeting will allow Transport NI to consider possible measures to improve conditions for pedestrians crossing at that busy junction.

TNI considers all such requests for controlled pedestrian crossings against set criteria that take into account the speed and volume of traffic and the demand for pedestrians and vulnerable users to cross a road at a particular location. Usually, surveys will be carried out to determine the peak demand for crossing movements. On occasion, even where the criteria are met, it can be difficult or impossible to provide a crossing at the desired crossing point, and it may be necessary to locate it a short distance away. Where a controlled crossing is not deemed necessary but there is sufficient demand, measures such as pedestrian refuge islands and dropped kerbs may be considered instead.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for her answer. That pedestrian crossing is in an extremely busy area on the boundary of north Belfast and south Antrim leading to Glengormley, Sandyknowes, Ballyclare and Larne. There is not only a high amount of traffic but a heck of an amount of pedestrians. I had to walk that route every day when my children were young and at school, so I know only too well the problems. You are absolutely right, we do have a meeting later on this month, but has there been any history of collisions there? If we were to get any type of pedestrian crossing, have you any idea what could be planned for that area?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for her question. There have been six personal injury collisions at that junction during the most recent three-year period when PSNI collision data is available. Three involved cyclists and motorcyclists, both considered to be vulnerable road users. There have been no reported collisions involving pedestrians during the same period, but TNI will be carrying out a review of the safety of that junction with emphasis on vulnerable road users. I recognise that that is a busy junction, and obviously it is local to the Member. Any formal crossing facilities would have to be carefully sited so as not to be too close to junctions or to compromise private entrances. Normally, they take the form of puffin or toucan crossings and, at some sites, there are zebra crossings. I hope that answers the question for the Member.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

5. Mr Humphrey asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline the plans she has to extend the Belfast rapid transit system to north Belfast. (AQO 9686/11-16)

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I am fully committed to the delivery of Belfast rapid transit (BRT), including not only the current phase but future extensions to the north and south of the city. Belfast rapid transit is a transformational public transport project for the city. It represents a great opportunity for Belfast going forward and is a major undertaking by my Department in support of an Executive priority.

To assess the viability of potential Belfast rapid transit routes to north and south Belfast, my Department has already undertaken surveys. The results of those, along with passenger information and existing data sets, are being used in the development of a new transport model for Belfast. The model will enable my Department to assess potential options for the extension of Belfast rapid transit and to prepare a business case for the extension of the system to north and south Belfast. Any future extension of the system will, of course, be subject to the availability of funding. My Department is continuing to engage with those responsible for current and proposed developments on potential future routes for BRT, including the Department for Social Development and the University of Ulster, to ensure as far as possible that the future provision of Belfast rapid transit to those key areas is not prejudiced.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Has a route been identified for north Belfast, and what is the likely timescale for its operation and implementation?