Northern Ireland Assembly, 15 March 2016

464 contributions from 81 members. The official report.

Assembly Business — End of Mandate

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Before we begin today’s business, I will make some brief remarks to mark the end of the mandate. After I have made my comments, I will give the leaders of the five largest parties, or their nominated representatives, an opportunity to speak for up to five minutes. Thereafter, the process will follow that used for Matters of the Day: Members who wish to contribute should indicate so by rising in their places and continuing to do so. If called, they will be allowed a maximum of three minutes to make their remarks. I do not intend for this item to last for more than 45 or 50 minutes, but I will exercise some discretion on the time limit to try to include as many Members as possible. I remind Members that I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until this item of business has finished.

I expect today to be the last meeting of the Assembly before Easter recess and dissolution on 29 March 2016. In the weeks to come, Members, candidates and parties will have plenty of opportunity to debate the achievements of the last five years. I will use today to put some appreciation on the record in terms of the support for Members and the contribution of Members.

Since May 2011, there have been 337 plenary sessions of the Assembly and approximately 2,545 Committee meetings. I anticipate that we are likely to have passed 67 Bills, 30 of them since last September, as I am sure some of you have noticed. We have also had more than 72,000 questions tabled. Amidst all of that during the mandate, there have been 270,000 visitors to Parliament Buildings. None of that could be done without the support of the staff of the Assembly, both the secretariat and our contractors, whether connected directly to our proceedings or welcoming our visitors, providing services or maintaining the Building. As someone first elected to the Assembly in 1998, I have, since becoming Speaker, gained a deeper insight and respect for the work that goes on behind the scenes to make this institution operate. I formally record the appreciation of the Assembly for the whole team in the Building. I also recognise the work of the staff of Members and parties, who have a difficult role but who play a significant part in supporting our proceedings. We are grateful for that, too.

I thank all Members for their cooperation. We have, for the most part, conducted our business with respect and good temper. We have had some very sensitive and serious debates in a completely different atmosphere to what was possible when I was first elected in 1998.

I will be back to preside over the first sitting of the new Assembly, but today allows me the privilege to recognise those colleagues who will not be returning in May. By my reckoning, some 16 Members are not seeking re-election, seven of whom, like me, have been here since 1998. I thank them all sincerely for their contribution over those years. Regardless of our political divisions, you have all brought something different to the Chamber and your constituencies. I want to acknowledge that being an elected representative, particularly in a society with our history, is not easy, and I thank you and your families for your service.

We have a new generation coming forward, and we have a responsibility to them. With retirements and co-options, I expect that more than 30% of the Members who were elected to here in May 2011 will not be here in May 2016. That is a very significant churn, but it also represents an outstanding opportunity to take the next steps in the development of our Assembly and to helping our society come to terms with the changes that have been wrought over those years. The election will also be the first one in which those born post the Good Friday Agreement will come on to the electoral register.

At one time, many of us here today would never have imagined that we would be together in the Chamber in these circumstances. I am constantly surprised by the number of people who comment to me or stop me to say that they have been watching business and particular discussions and debates in the Assembly. Despite what at times is very hostile and negative reportage, that underlines to me that many people in our community are deeply invested in this institution. The Assembly is, of course, imperfect, and the issues that it deals with are very challenging and difficult. Those of us who played some part in getting us this far are looking to all of you who are hoping to come back to work constructively to continue to improve it. We have a tragic past to deal with, but we also need to be focused on the future. The next weeks will be largely about party politics, but let me just give a gentle reminder that it is for every Member from every party to play a part in moving society forward.

Finally, Members will know that I hosted Assembly Women's Week last week, which involved close to 1,000 participants, and again saw great efforts and commitment from Assembly staff and great cooperation and mutual respect from every political party in this institution, with women giving the lead in that respect. I end today with one last reminder to parties and the electorate about the need for the Assembly to be representative of the population. We currently have 23 female Members. That is our best record, but I think that most people would recognise that it is also a record of dismal failure. It is still nowhere near good enough. If we were truly to represent the community that we are elected by, we should have 51% women in the Assembly. When I preside over the registration of new Members and the election of a new Speaker, I will be looking very carefully to see how well we have improved on the existing record. I anticipate that we will improve on it, but I do not think that we are going to crack the 51%.

I wish all of you who are not coming back all the best for whatever the future holds. I hope that those of you seeking re-election enjoy the campaign, as well as have a successful one. To all those who are not coming back — I am one of them — I say that we should keep in touch. We are the owners of the corporate memory of this institution, and it has been a pleasure to know each and every one of you. Thank you very much.

[Applause.]

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

It is my pleasure to be able to stand in for my party leader, the First Minister, who is, of course, in the United States of America with the deputy First Minister this week doing what she does so well: working to attract jobs and investment to Northern Ireland.

I welcome this opportunity to briefly reflect on the Assembly term, which draws to an end this week. It is fair to say that the Assembly and the Executive have faced a range of challenges over the past five years. We began the term feeling the effects of the worst economic downturn in living memory and the subsequent impact of austerity. We experienced difficulties in passing welfare reform legislation to such an extent that the very existence of the devolved institutions was in serious jeopardy. In spite of our difficulties and in defiance of the doom merchants who wished to collapse Stormont, we came through our problems, and we are the stronger for it.

The Fresh Start Agreement reached in November was just that: an opportunity to begin again, to get our public finances back on an even keel and to resolve the issue of welfare reform. Welfare reform may have been the issue that threatened devolution most, but its resolution is a clear illustration of the benefits of devolution to Northern Ireland. A solution tailored to Northern Ireland's needs is always better than what direct rule would have produced.

There will be some who, for their own petty, party political reasons, will want to talk down devolution, but the evidence is clear: devolution has delivered for the people of Northern Ireland. Difficult decisions by successive Finance Ministers have ensured that we still have the lowest household taxes in the United Kingdom. We have increased investment in health and social care by over £0·5 billion, and we have employed 1,200 more nurses and nearly 300 more consultants. We have created more jobs than at any time in Northern Ireland's history, with 40,000 new jobs promoted through foreign direct investment, business start-ups and local support. We have built new roads, new schools and new hospitals, and we have rebuilt town and city centres. Our schools still produce the best examination results in the United Kingdom.

I would not, for a single second, dream of standing here and suggesting that things are perfect, because they are not. We have done a lot, but there is much more to do. If we are to keep Northern Ireland moving forward and capitalise on the progress that we have made, partnership will be required in this place. The Democratic Unionist Party firmly believes that, for all its imperfections, devolution remains in the best interests of Northern Ireland and its people. We must do the best we can to govern well in spite of those imperfections and not waste our time dreaming of an undeliverable utopia. There will always be differences, but is debate inside Stormont not infinitely better than division on our streets?

As events in east Belfast in recent days have illustrated, we know only too well that our society is still polluted with those who would drag us back to the dark days of the past. They cannot, and they will not, be allowed to succeed.

Mr Speaker, this is your last day presiding over business in the Chamber. I had the pleasure of sitting under your chairmanship of the Finance Committee almost a decade ago, and I saw for myself your capacity to fairly yet firmly do your job. You brought that same style to the prestigious post of Speaker, and, on behalf of my party, I place on record our thanks to you for the way that you have impartially dealt with the business of the House and sensitively dealt with some difficult issues. I wish you well.

This item of business also allows us to pay tribute to those colleagues and even opponents who are not running for re-election. I offer my best wishes to everyone who is stepping down, particularly my party colleagues Stephen Moutray, Gregory Campbell and Peter Robinson.

Whether friend or foe, all of us enter public service with the best interests of Northern Ireland at heart; we just have different visions on how that can be achieved. In the weeks ahead, the Democratic Unionist Party looks forward to taking our vision and our plan for a better future to the people of Northern Ireland.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Tá an-áthas orm bheith ag labhairt ar an ócáid seo ar maidin. It is a privilege to stand in for Martin McGuinness, who, like the First Minister, is in America.

We are very conscious that this is the last time that you will be presiding over a plenary session, although you have one more function to do. On behalf of my party colleagues in Sinn Féin, I put on record our great appreciation and deep admiration for how you carried out the Speaker's role. You brought to that role all your experience of over 40 years in political activism. We have seen your ability, wisdom, judgement, leadership and decisiveness. We have also seen, particularly in your role as Speaker, your firmness when you have had to put people in their place, be they party colleagues or not.

Even this year — the 100th anniversary of the Easter rising and the battle of the Somme — we have seen your compassion and sensitivity in the many events you held in the Assembly. That sets a template for how people can remember in a way that is mindful not only of our differences but of the fact that we have a shared narrative and a shared history. If I can break with convention once and perhaps not be pulled by you, as Speaker, I will say this: Mitchel, this team of Sinn Féin MLAs wishes you very well, and we wish you and your family all the best for the future. We know that you are not going into retirement; indeed, I have no doubt that the constituency of Foyle will have an interest in some of the work that you will do.

I also think it would be remiss of me not to mention John Dallat, the Deputy Speaker. I do not want to pick him out from the many colleagues who,as you say, are leaving this place and not seeking re-election; it is right and proper that we acknowledge all their roles and wish them all well for the future. However, I particularly want to mention John Dallat, the Deputy Speaker. I sat with John on the Regional Development Committee. He is a very courteous and hard-working person, and in his role as Deputy Speaker, he too displayed the necessary qualities of fairness and firmness when it was required.

I will make a few concluding remarks on the term. I put on record our appreciation of our five Ministers and the great work that they have carried out over the mandate. On behalf of the party, I thank all our MLAs, who, in my opinion, have made massive contributions to legislation, Committee work and the unseen work that the Assembly sometimes does not get the proper publicity for. There is absolutely no doubt that, against the backdrop of Tory-led austerity and the reduction in the block grant, the record of the Assembly in protecting the most vulnerable is there to be seen.

The Health Minister said that there were many challenges, and there will be many before us. However, if we show the stewardship and leadership that brought about the Fresh Start Agreement, none of those challenges are insurmountable. We have been innovative and have shown innovation in the past in how we addressed them.

There are headlines that the Assembly should seek praise for. When we go in front of the people, they are the final arbiters of whether this Assembly has worked and whether we, as public representatives, have fulfilled the promises we made at the last election. On May 5, the people will decide. However, there is absolutely no doubt that, against the backdrop of the economic downturn, 40,000 jobs were created. That is a plus, and it should be seen against that backdrop. The fact that we have secured and maintained the budget for health is to our credit. The Minister outlined the recruitment programme for more nurses, more allied health professionals and more consultants. There are still challenges for the health service, but we go forward from a position of strength.

It is very important, particularly against the backdrop of the recent election in the Twenty-six Counties, that, for issues like water charges, prescription charges, free domiciliary care and the delivery of education — the Minister ensured that equality was brought to the heart of all those issues and similarly with DARD and DCAL — we ensure that those in the most vulnerable places, the people who are under-resourced and those who perhaps did not have access to resources in the past are given access to them now. That is important, particularly on the issue of water charges, because we have seen how people in the Twenty-six Counties made that one of the key decisions and issues in the election.

As we go forward, our party is willing to play its part to ensure that the Assembly and the Executive will deliver for the people and protect them in future.

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

Mr Speaker, I think we all enter politics to make a difference. Individually, we help in the daily life of many of our constituents, but it is the Assembly's job and ours as politicians collectively to really make a difference for society as a whole. It is our job to ensure that our people can and should dare to dream that life can be better; that our children will not be forced to leave these shores for the promise of work in Australia or America because of a failing economy — I referenced the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's latest research; that our health service provides a service that is fit for the 21st century and is not dominated by waiting-list headlines, among others; that we can provide world-class education and training for our young people; and that we become a much more cohesive society that is at peace, finally, with its troubled past. Can we say that in this mandate we have achieved that ambition on behalf of all our people?

We can point to collective achievements — local government reform among them — but just months ago the echoes of our past threatened our political future, reinforcing the challenges to our delicate political system that the Good Friday Agreement could never have foreseen. We cannot look back on a mandate and claim that it succeeded when we ended with a process we called 'A Fresh Start': a fresh start that failed to properly address the needs of victims and survivors; a fresh start that had Sinn Féin and the DUP handing welfare-cutting powers back to Westminster and not resolving it in the interests of the most vulnerable; and a fresh start that failed to reference job creation, economic development or a prosperity process as a top priority. There are many big challenges facing Northern Ireland, perhaps the biggest of which is to get people into work. It is our job to create the infrastructural and educational opportunities and to maximise those opportunities. The SDLP can sum it up simply in saying that we need to make Northern Ireland work and that the Assembly needs to make Northern Ireland work.

The public know, instinctively, that we have not delivered all that we could, which is why the public are looking to the next mandate and the next Programme for Government. Following the Assembly election, this party will heavily scrutinise the Programme for Government. If it does not come up to the mark, we will not be afraid to say so. In particular, we want the Programme for Government to adopt a much more joined-up style of government that delivers much greater accountability and transparency and will itself say that it wants Northern Ireland to work.

Nine years after the resurrection of devolution, can we say that the Assembly has worked for our population of 1·8 million, when less than half are economically active and when we generate revenues of £14 billion a year and consume close to £24 billion a year in public services? With the Conservatives committed to their stringent austerity programme, there will be no special dispensation for here. Our situation is fundamentally and economically unsustainable, and that is why we will not accept anything less than a detailed prosperity strategy come May. We need to do everything we can to bring investment and job opportunities. A prosperity strategy should also include a massive programme of workforce training and skills enhancement. We need to meaningfully address the levels of social deprivation that prevent far too many people here reaching their potential and cause such strain, for example, on our health service. The legacy of the Troubles has meant that some areas have fallen behind and are now dominated by long-term mental health issues and other long-term conditions brought about by long-term deprivation and unemployment. What sort of society are we if we continue to allow the most marginalised to be further marginalised? What sort of Government have we become that we have not altered our deprivation statistics in any meaningful way in the past nine years? Creating much better social cohesion and integration must be another Programme for Government requirement.

Health reform, job creation, better infrastructure, creating world-class education and tackling social deprivation are issues on which the SDLP is not prepared to compromise. Stagnation at Stormont is no longer an option. In the next mandate, we want to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland, make things work and drive the changes that our society cries out for.

Finally, I thank all those who serve the Assembly for their positive contributions and all those who, in any way, influence and shape it. In that context, I thank you too, Mr Speaker, and I wish you well, along with all your colleagues who are retiring.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

It gives me great pleasure to speak on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party. Most importantly, I would like to start by paying tribute, on behalf of the party and, indeed, the Ulster Unionist MLA group, to Leslie Cree, Sam Gardiner, Michael McGimpsey, Michael Copeland and Neil Somerville, who will not be standing in the upcoming election but who all made a considerable impact in their respective constituencies and in Northern Ireland. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the dedication and hard work of Danny Kinahan MP and Tom Elliott MP, who left the Ulster Unionist Party group for Westminster last year.

I also pay tribute to Members from other parties who are stepping down. I am sure that Members from across the House will join me in wishing them well.

I want to take this opportunity to also thank all the Ulster Unionist support staff, who have been instrumental in providing support to our MLAs. It would remiss of me not to thank the support staff throughout Parliament Buildings, who have worked tirelessly behind the scenes, and staff from the statutory agencies, who we, as MLAs, work closely with on a daily basis to support our constituents.

My thanks go to you, Mr Speaker, the Principal Deputy Speaker, and the Deputy Speakers, who have presided over this House in a professional and diligent manner.

A lot has happened over the past five years. However, a lot more can and should be done to deliver a better Northern Ireland for all our people.

Last but not least, I would like to place on record my utmost thanks to Mr Welch, director of facilities; you, Mr Speaker; the team behind Mr Welch; the Assembly Commission; and all involved who have made every effort not only to accommodate me but other disabled visitors to this magnificent Building by taking measures to make it more accessible. That work is not finished, and I look forward to returning on 9 May with a strong Ulster Unionist Party team, delivering and doing what is right for Northern Ireland.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Speaker, particularly in the context in which you introduced this item, I suppose that it is natural that we should look back on some achievements, whether statistics on questions asked or numbers of Bills passed. However, there is certain danger that we then end up in a mood of self-congratulation, which does not entirely take into account the feelings that people in the community have about this Assembly.

There is no doubt that we have changed from the days when you and I first arrived here in 1998, but whether we have changed as much as people expected remains very much an open question. Whilst, unlike some in the Chamber, I have no doubt in my belief that devolution is better than direct rule, and I believe that we have actually shown a significant measure of delivery in comparison with what went before, we need to also acknowledge that that is a pretty low bar against which to set our standards. There are real challenges to ensuring that we deal with the frustration that is felt in the wider community and to actually addressing the key issues before us in a way in which we have not yet managed. We have not fully got a spirit of partnership and working together at Executive level, even if we do have some good examples from Committees in this place of how that should be done.

Others have referred to the so-called Fresh Start deal of last autumn. There is no doubt that it provided a degree of stability, but, all but 18 years from the Good Friday Agreement, is stability enough? We need to be moving on from the concept of saying that the institutions are surviving and, therefore, that is something good, to the point where we can genuinely say that the institutions are delivering. There is no doubt that we could look through a series of issues where we have not got the strategies in place that we need and where we have not spent the money that we should have spent on dealing with poverty and social inclusion. There are real challenges across every Department to ensure that we get a better measure of delivery in the future.

In the spirit in which others have highlighted the work of their Ministers, I certainly believe that we can say that six years of devolution of justice has made a difference. We have tackled issues like prison reform, youth justice and, I dare say, even legal aid, which were not tackled previously. As I acknowledged yesterday in the presence of a number of members of the Justice Committee, I acknowledge that that has worked, because we worked well in partnership between this Assembly, particularly the Justice Committee, and the Department. However, while we have made modest improvements on things like the removal of interface structures, there is still an awful lot more to be done that requires a much greater joining up of work between the future Department for Communities, the Department for Infrastructure and the Department of Justice than we have yet seen.

Let us acknowledge that, while we have made improvements, there is a lot more still to be done. In the same way, we can highlight some of our economic successes, and if Stephen Farry were here representing me — unfortunately for others, I am representing myself this morning — he would doubtless highlight the role that DEL has played in the creation of tens of thousands of new jobs and the 1,300 or so university places in STEM subjects and in work done around apprenticeships, all of which have been key to getting us started on the road of economic recovery, but there is such a lot more that still needs to be done.

I add my words of thanks to a number in this place who I regard as friends, if not exactly colleagues, in different parties, particularly the seven of the old guard who have been here since 1998. That number will potentially be even more diminished after the election, even should the good people of South Down decide to return Jim Wells to this place yet again, or if the good people of South Antrim return me. We are clearly going through a time of transition. Mr Speaker, you highlighted the fact that, after May, the Assembly will be significantly changed compared with five years ago, and that has to be an opportunity to move things on.

In paying tribute to those who are leaving, I particularly mention my three colleagues: Judith Cochrane, whom you know well, Mr Speaker, from her work on the Assembly Commission, where she helped to make this place run more smoothly than would otherwise have been the case; Anna Lo, who has been a phenomenal Chair of the Environment Committee and introduced initiatives in a way that some Committee Chairs can grasp and other Chairs often do not grasp; and the particular old boy who is sitting directly behind me, Kieran McCarthy. I assure you that the Alliance Party will do its best to address the age and gender issue in providing Kieran's replacement in this place. I shall leave it there, but we need to address that issue collectively.

I thank those who sit beside you, Mr Speaker — the Clerk/Chief Executive and the Clerks — and all staff, from doorkeepers, cleaners and catering staff through to the entire secretariat, for the exceptionally good way in which we are served. I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for the role that you have performed. There were those who thought that it was not possible for somebody with your political background to be the Speaker of the House. You have proved that it is possible to make change and that it can be done by anybody from any background. The way in which you sought to reach out has been very welcome to all of us. The challenge for those of us who return to the Assembly will be in building the public services that our people want, ensuring that we get that across all our public services and ensuring that, in this place, we really start to build a united community.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Thank you. If Members want to make contributions, I will recognise them as best I can when they rise in their place.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I begin my contribution by thanking all the staff in this Assembly and in previous Assemblies, whom I found to be extremely courteous, diligent and helpful at all times.

I spent yesterday morning in the Senate Chamber at an event for victims, and I sat beside one of our youngest councillors in Northern Ireland. I asked him his age, and he told me that he was 24. I then pointed out to him that I was first elected to this Chamber in 1982, 10 years before he was even born. In the first 20 years of that time, violence was prolific. Politics was mired in quicksand. An agreement was always essential, but the right basis for getting it eluded parties here. When the right basis was eventually established, it still meant that hard and difficult choices had to be made. The DUP made the right choice and choices. We took the right decisions when it would have been easier to take the wrong ones, and, for that, we make no apology. For our stance, our statements and our comments since then, we make no apology whatsoever — none.

Over the last five years, people yearned for delivery, which has begun under the guidance of the DUP. Planning for the future cannot and must not mean forgetting the past. Those who caused our bloody and deceitful past will not be allowed to erase their part in it. However much they try, they will not be allowed to do that. Battles must still be fought. For me, the arena will change and the venue will be different, but that campaign must and will be waged until it is won. I am not standing for election with my colleagues, but I am standing on the same ground, with them and beside them, and, together, we will take this country forward to be a much better place.

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

In the last century, when I was first elected to the Assembly —

[Laughter.]

— people used to ask me what I did. I said that I was a fireman — a political fireman who put out political fires. That is what we did for the first five years or so: we put out political fires. I have become redundant, or semi-redundant, in relation to putting out political fires. I do that only on a part-time basis now because the political fires are much fewer than they were in the past. I feel as though I have changed and become an alchemist, in that my party and I have attempted to transform the lead of sectarianism and division into the pure gold of reconciliation, cooperation and community harmony. I hope that we can change that. I hope that, as I leave this place and a new mandate starts, I can relinquish the function of alchemist and that we will have a new dispensation in which we can, in fact, create that reconciliation, because the Assembly was created as a forum for reconciliation. What we have now is good, and we have achieved significant progress, but we need to do much, much better. We need to create a situation in which we can transform power-sharing into partnership — a dynamic, active partnership based on goodwill and harmony in which we can work together for the good of all of our people: Catholic and Protestant; nationalist and unionist. That is what the Assembly is all about.

I believe that we have made small progress towards that, but we can do much, much better. I look at the Justice Committee, which was mentioned yesterday during the Justice Bill debate, and see it as an exemplar of how people can work together, despite their political differences, and create a political consensus in order to make worthwhile changes in the justice system. That, I believe, is worthwhile and an exemplar of what we can do together on a non-partisan basis. You do not have to give up being SDLP, Sinn Féin or DUP; you can continue to hold on to that but work for the common good.

Finally, Mr Speaker, I thank you for your work in the Assembly, and I thank your distinguished predecessor, Willie Hay, for all of his work. Both of you acted in the interests of the whole Assembly and the whole community. You showed your independence and wisdom, and I believe that that should be properly recognised.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

In 2007, when I decided to run for election, it was an exciting time filled with a promise of change to a better, more inclusive and progressive society. I have seen change, though, borrowing a line from Yeats, "peace comes dropping slow". More still needs to be done.

As someone who cares deeply about the environment, I could not have picked a more appropriate Committee of which to be Chair. I thank all of the Environment Committee members, past and present, who have worked so well together in the spirit of respect and partnership for the common good. I was delighted to have initiated the inaugural Environment Week, which I hope will be an annual event. I also express my gratitude to the very able Committee staff whom we rely on so much to function effectively. I also pay tribute to the environment sector whose expertise and commitment have been invaluable to us.

As the only ever MLA from an ethnic minority background, I was glad to be in a position to set up the all-party group on ethnic minorities and human trafficking, as well as to lobby extensively with the voluntary sector for a racial equality strategy, which was finally published last year. I hope that MLAs will continue to monitor progress on those issues and to speak out against racism. I will be watching you.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

As one of the few pro-choice MLAs, I was naturally disappointed that the two amendments to the Justice Bill, one tabled by colleagues and one by me, to allow abortion in very limited circumstances did not pass. We cannot afford to ignore the issue; women need our help.

I want to thank my constituents. It has been an enormous privilege to be an MLA for South Belfast, a constituency that is so vibrant and diverse.

Finally, I want to thank all the Members of the Assembly with whom I have a worked. In particular, I would like to thank my Alliance Party colleagues for their support and friendship. I look forward to seeing more positive changes in the next mandate. I wish you all the very best for the future. Thank you.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Self-praise is a poor recommendation. I say that in the context of the contributions of the DUP/Sinn Féin cabal that controls this House. To many, this House and these institutions are a byword for failure and squander. The primary responsibility for that rests on those who control the House; those who heap self-praise upon themselves today.

When I was elected to the Assembly in 2011, the then First Minister, Mr Peter Robinson, boasted that the Assembly should be judged on delivery. I do indeed hope that the people will judge it on delivery because that delivery has been so abysmal that it deserves the judgement of the people on it. If that is to be the benchmark, bring on the delivery of the verdict.

Those, of course, who created the dysfunctional mess tell us that they have made a fresh start — a commentary in itself that that which they have presided over needed a fresh start. They had run it into such chaos that that is what it required. There is no doubt that they hope now to con many people that they who created the mess will in fact create a fresh start.

That fresh start, of course, was possible only by the DUP's sweeping murder under the carpet. A Government panel reported that the IRA still existed and was still armed, that it had murdered again, and that it still had an army council that had control over party and paramilitary organisation. All that was swept under the carpet for the purpose and sake of keeping the limos and the Government positions and carrying on as normal. I trust that that, too, will not be forgotten; that the price of that fresh start was indeed that ignoble start of sweeping murder under the carpet.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Thank you —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The truth is that these institutions —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Thank you.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— because they defy the basic dynamics of democracy and deny the people the right to change their Government and have a proper opposition will need a lot more than a fresh start.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Thank you for those warm and generous comments.

[Laughter.]

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I would like to say that it has been a privilege to serve the people of North Down over the last five years. Further to that, I am proud to have represented the views of Green Party members and supporters across Northern Ireland, as currently our sole MLA.

One of my early victories was the number of people who contacted me when I made speeches to say that they felt for the first time that someone was representing their views. As someone who had previously felt that Northern Ireland politics did not reflect me, I take it as a privilege and a position of responsibility to articulate those views and to make the arguments for the policies and values of the Green Party in Northern Ireland. However, I was never satisfied just to be here. Being elected was not, in itself, enough, which is why, in December, when my private Member's Bill became law with the Children's Services Co-operation Bill being enacted, it was a very proud day for me and my party. We were able to say that we had promised change and had delivered it in an area as vital as children's services. It was a Bill about cooperation. For that reason, I thank the Bill Office, OFMDFM and Members across the parties for their cooperation in bringing forward that very important law.

I have also sought to lead on issues such as marriage equality, transparency and environmental protection. That is why, although I go into the election confident but not complacent, I will be making the argument that we need to keep a Green presence in the Assembly and to increase it, because equal marriage, transparency and environmental protection are still works in progress in Northern Ireland.

I hope that the naughty corner will be emboldened by having more Greens at the other side of the election, and I am confident that we will provide an effective opposition to whoever make up the next Executive.

To those such as you, Mr Speaker, who are not seeking re-election, I wish you well. I believe that there is not only a life after politics but most likely a better life after politics. It is one that I look forward to but, hopefully, not as soon as May.

On your point, Mr Speaker, on the number of women in the Assembly, it has been a failure of our parties to date to get women elected, and that is why my party introduced quotas and, for the first time, is standing nine female candidates out of a total of 18. That is 50% of our candidates, because we believe that the Assembly should reflect our society.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I rise for the last time to address the Assembly. I thank the people of Lagan Valley for the privilege of representing them over the past nine years. It seems like only yesterday that I first got here, awestruck by the names on the doors of people that I had seen only on television, and, yet, here we are.

The highlight of my time here was when I chaired the Committee for Employment and Learning. There were some great colleagues there: Jim Allister, before anybody would talk to him; Fra McCann, a great inspiration; Chris Lyttle; and Pat Ramsey. Those were good days. I enjoyed dealing with the challenges of further and higher education, youth unemployment, NEETs and careers advice. That was real politics. It was what I enjoyed. I carried on that work on the all-party group on science and technology, and, when I am gone from this place, I hope that those who are still here will take up the challenge of science and technology, because that is where the jobs are and that is where the future is.

I also enjoyed my time on the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure. I believe passionately in the arts. Arts are not an overhead. They inspire us, they unite us and they give us hope. We need to do more for the arts. Hopefully, whoever follows me will also take the lead in championing the arts.

I am proud of what I achieved and of what I tried to achieve. For those who follow me now and in the future, I will give them a famous quotation from Winston Churchill:

"Success is not final, failure is not fatal..."

— what matters is to have the courage to go on. I will go on. I will leave this place with my head high, with my colours flying, with my dignity intact and with all conviction about what is good for Northern Ireland. In conclusion, two roads diverged in the woods, and I took the road less travelled. That has made all the difference.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

First and foremost, I pay tribute to all the people of East Londonderry. It has been my privilege to represent them in the House. After the loss of my predecessor and dear friend and mentor David McClarty in 2014, my constituents welcomed me into East Londonderry as their representative, and we have done fantastic work since. In my role as an MLA, I am most satisfied when I am serving my constituents, whether it be their individual needs or working with the community and voluntary groups that I have met over the past two years. It will be my privilege to continue to serve them when I am returned to the House in May.

Mr Speaker, I want to pay tribute to your leadership of the House. The way that you have conducted yourself and the way that you have harboured a sense of respect in the House should be commended. You are a gentleman. You have treated me, as a Back-Bench Member and an independent of the House, with fairness and courtesy, and you have given me many opportunities. I sincerely wish you well in your retirement.

I want to thank all the MLAs of the House. A quality of a good politician is to build relationships. It is how we get things done, and it is certainly something that I have sought to do with every side of the House. I really appreciate that every Member has welcomed me and embraced me, and we have built up those good relationships, so that we have got work done. It has not necessarily been work reported in the news, but we have done work behind closed doors. Contrary to what a lot of people think, we do sometimes do something up here.

I give best wishes to all those who are not seeking re-election. In particular, I pay tribute to my constituency colleagues John Dallat MLA and Gregory Campbell MP/MLA, particularly Gregory Campbell. We have an awful lot of work to do in East Londonderry, and I look forward to working with him when I am returned as an MLA and he continues his work as an MP.

I wish to pay tribute to the staff of the House. We have the craic. It makes the hour and a half journey coming up here much more enjoyable. Again, they have welcomed me. They are as much part of the fabric of this place as the Members and their staff, and that should be acknowledged.

Politics in Northern Ireland is changing. It is a generation since the Good Friday Agreement. That signals that we have to now embrace the new generation. Time will be a great healer in Northern Ireland — nothing else — and until the people who were involved in the Troubles are no longer involved in politics, I do not think that Northern Ireland will truly move on. The people who will remain here, maybe for the next five or 10 years, who were involved in the Troubles will pave the way for a new generation. That is important.

This mandate has not been perfect. It has actually been quite frustrating. I am a student of politics — many degrees and all that — but the one person whom I take a lot of my experience from taught me that politics is about people. We need to embrace that in the next mandate. Last year, when we saw Ministers going in and out of office, that was not respecting people. If I can encourage anything in the next mandate, it is that we start putting the people of Northern Ireland first.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

On behalf of the Assembly, I congratulate you on your recent engagement.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to a great many people for giving me the chance to represent them in the Assembly for the past 18 years. First, I want to thank God for giving me the health and the strength to perform my work and my duties on behalf of the community. I want to thank my wife and my family. I want to thank the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland and my good colleagues on each side of me and in front of me and to thank David Ford and Stephen Farry, as Ministers, for their work in the Assembly.

I thank my voters in Strangford, my loyal staff in Ards, the volunteers and the many groups I have worked with during the past 30 years as a public servant. I thank everyone in this Building for their help, courtesy and comradeship over the years. That goes right from the security outside the gates to those inside the Building, from the cleaners to the chief executive of this place. I say, "Thank you". We are all ordinary people simply doing a job, and everyone has been extremely helpful.

I am very proud to have served as a member of the Alliance Party in the Assembly. Alliance has played a pivotal role for years in establishing a power-sharing Administration, respect and diversity in Northern Ireland. First came the Good Friday Agreement, then came the M-Day — the miracle day — on 8 May 2007, when the late Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness walked down the steps in the Great Hall to tell the world that hostilities were over and they were going to work together for the good of all the people in Northern Ireland. We truly have come a long way, and thank God for it. What a pity so many people had to suffer. We must never, ever forget all our victims.

I thank all 107 Assembly colleagues for their help, friendship and cooperation over the past 18 years. I will never forget the outpouring of sympathy, almost three years ago next month, when my family was plunged into unimaginable grief. You all helped to get us through that dreadful period. I thank Martin McGuinness. Martin McGuinness made his way to my room on the third floor and spent 20 minutes with me offering sympathy on behalf of himself and his party. That is something I will never forget. That is what human nature is all about.

I wish everyone here every success for the future. Leaving the Assembly, I would like my legacy to be advancing mental health and learning disability, which can no longer be the Cinderella of the health service, and advancing apartment owners' protection and the preservation of our precious townland names. As I leave the Assembly this evening for the very last time, I hope to be replaced by a bright, young and enthusiastic lady called Kellie Armstrong, who has the welfare of Northern Ireland at heart.

I wish you, Mr Speaker, and all our colleagues good luck for a bright future and a healthy retirement. For my final few words, I appeal to our First Minister and deputy First Minister and their new Executive to keep Northern Ireland stepping forward faster and to create a better future in peace and prosperity for everyone, particularly senior citizens. I have never raised my voice in the House until now, when I will say this loud and clear: hands off our bus passes. Hands off our bus passes.

[Laughter.]

[Applause.]

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Thank you. I call Mr John McCallister.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Go raibh míle maith agat and slán go fóill. Ta tae yez aw; sae lang the noo. Thanks very much, and goodbye.

[Laughter.]

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

It would have been such a shame to have to have him removed on his last day.

Mr Speaker, I will begin by paying tribute to you and the respect agenda you have set in your time in the Speaker's office. That has been an important contribution, as have the speeches you made outlining that and how we respect the diversity of our community. That has been important in the Assembly, in its culture and the feel it gives to it coming out from the prestigious office that you hold. That is important, and I wish you and your family well in your retirement.

I am, like Ms Sugden, one of those who hope to be back here in a number of weeks, and it never fails to impress any of us coming up to this Building. I remember vividly from nine years ago, when I was first elected, the enormous sense of pride I had in arriving at the Building for the first time as a Member and the contributions that everybody made.

While there is partly a disappointment in some regards about what the Assembly and Executive have achieved, the one thing that they have achieved is to have got people talking from very different and difficult backgrounds. As Mr Hamilton said, it is much better having a robust debate in here than division on our streets. Through positions on various Committees, I have watched people engage. Suddenly, some of those divisions come down, because healthcare is important regardless of what side of the community you are from. What we do about tackling poverty and educational underachievement hits everyone. Sometimes, with those issues, you see that being broken down.

In this term, I am particularly proud of the private Member's Bill to reform the way that the Assembly does its business, and I hope that the messages from all of the political parties seem to be that there is a will to have a much more collective and cohesive Executive on the other side of an election. I hope that that means that people start to deliver and that the Executive will be held to account by a robust opposition and, indeed, possibly by an emboldened "naughty corner", for want of a better phrase. It is important to have that challenge and scrutiny.

To everyone who is retiring, I wish you all well and every success in the future.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

The final Member who I have time for is Deputy Speaker John Dallat.

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

Mr Speaker, I had not planned to speak because I realise that, even though it is our last day, we are scheduled to sit here until 9.15 pm. However, it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to you as Speaker and to the previous Speaker, Willie Hay, who initially moulded me into the role of Deputy Speaker. I want to also briefly say thanks to the people in all of the political parties who made life exceptionally easy for me. You have been more than good. There were times when you could have had my scalp and you did not do it.

If I were to give some advice to new Members coming in, that advice would be this: if you want to be happy in this Building, get to know the people outside the Chamber — the cleaners, the ushers, the security people and, in particular, the ones in the canteen. They are the heart and soul of the Building, and, as I leave it, I am exceptionally proud of them. They come from the north, the south, the east and the west of this city, and, if you really want to know what is going on, you ask them because they are the heart and soul of this place.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I thank all of those who contributed to that discussion in that session.

Assembly Business

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

As all business on yesterday's Order Paper was considered, we will move on.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

I beg to move

That, as set out in section 2(4) of the Financial Assistance for Political Parties Act (Northern Ireland) 2000, this Assembly approves the revised scheme [NIA 329/11-16] laid before the Assembly on 8 March 2016 for payments to political parties for the purpose of assisting Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly who are connected with such parties to perform their Assembly duties.

I move the motion on behalf of the Assembly Commission. Members will be aware that the Financial Assistance for Political Parties Act (Northern Ireland) 2000 provides for the Commission to bring a scheme to make such payment to the Assembly. Any payment to a political party under the financial assistance for political parties (FAPP) scheme can only be made for the express purpose set out in section 1 of the 2000 Act, and that is for assisting Members of the Assembly who are connected with such parties to perform their Assembly duties.

That purpose is replicated at article 1 of the scheme. The FAPP scheme does not provide payments to individual Members, nor does it provide payments to parties for any purposes other than assisting Members of that party to carry out their Assembly duties.

In tabling the motion today, the Assembly Commission seeks to meet two objectives. First, in line with its continuing commitment to deliver savings in its controllable running costs, the Commission unanimously agreed to reduce its operating expenditure by 5% for the 2016-17 financial year. While the Commission's budget for 2016-17 was unchanged from the 2015-16 figure, the Commission is mindful of the cuts applied across the wider public sector and agreed to reduce its controllable costs by 5%. That level of cut has been applied to the rates of assistance payable to parties under the revised financial assistance to political parties scheme.

Secondly, the Commission unanimously agreed some further revisions to the FAPP scheme to give effect to the proposals for additional funding to be made available for opposition parties in the Assembly from the start of the new mandate in May 2016. That followed the Assembly's endorsement on 8 February 2016 of the statement of proposed entitlements for an opposition, as set out in the Fresh Start Agreement, and the Assembly's call for the Speaker to take forward the implementation of those actions before the end of the mandate. That proposal will mean that, should an opposition party or parties be in place after the May election, funding will be reallocated from all the other parties to help to meet the increased funding payable to an opposition party or parties. Therefore, the revised scheme includes different payment rates to cover the different scenarios of there being no opposition party or of there being one or more opposition parties.

Members will also note that the changes to the number of Departments have a further impact on the FAPP funding. Currently, no payments are made in respect of a Member who holds a ministerial post, so the reduction in the number of Ministers will also have a modest impact on the funding that is available.

The proposed changes today will ensure that all parties take their share of the cuts that the wider public sector faces but, at the same time, ensure that the proposals for additional funding for an opposition party or parties, as set out in 'A Fresh Start', are met. When considering the matter, the Commission was, however, also very aware of the changes that are likely to be brought about by Mr McCallister's Bill, by wider developments relating to the development of opposition parties and by any future cuts that might be made to the Commission's budget. The Commission therefore agreed that this was an interim measure and that a fundamental review of the entire FAPP scheme should be carried out as soon as possible in the next mandate, including any required legislative change to ensure that we have an open, transparent and fit-for-purpose scheme.

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

I thank the Member for her contribution not just on this motion but as a member of the Assembly Commission. You have held that post with distinction right through your term.

I am grateful that the need to apply a cut to the payments under FAPP is recognised as a necessary part of any package of measures to ensure that the Assembly Commission meets its agreed budget reductions in 2016-17. The Assembly Commission unanimously agreed the planned 5% cut and the reallocation of funds between opposition and non-opposition parties after the next Assembly election in May 2016. The fundamental structure of the scheme and, therefore, the nature of the split of the funding under FAPP between parties of certain sizes and between the two elements of the scheme — general party funding and funding for the Whips' offices — were not a specific consideration for the Commission at this time. The Commission was concerned with the twin aims of meeting the budget cut for 2016-17 and implementing the intent of the Fresh Start Agreement. In doing so, the Commission fully recognised that the proposals for an opposition and how that might develop and the level of budget cuts that have been levied in recent years may require a more substantive review of the entirety of the FAPP scheme.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Speaking to the need for a more radical approach, how does this come anywhere close to meeting the needs of an opposition, which is opposition to a Government with, presently, 19 special advisers, each costing an average of £106,000 a year, and an army of civil servants to their back? What we have is the suggestion of a few pounds thrown at an opposition to provide opposition to that. Where is the equality of arms that would be necessary to provide for a real and effective opposition if all we are suggesting is £60,000 to fund two researchers at £30,000 each, when there are 19 special advisers who are paid £106,000 each? Where is the equality of arms?

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

My party did not sign up to one part of the Fresh Start deal, but we definitely support this part. Under the current Budget, it is a cost-neutral effect. That is why it is proposed that the Commission will agree that the FAPP scheme should be reviewed in the new mandate. This approach is a one-year measure.

I thank Members for their support. As I said, it was agreed unanimously at the Commission, and we look forward to its implementation.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That, as set out in section 2(4) of the Financial Assistance for Political Parties Act (Northern Ireland) 2000, this Assembly approves the revised scheme [NIA 329/11-16] laid before the Assembly on 8 March 2016 for payments to political parties for the purpose of assisting Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly who are connected with such parties to perform their Assembly duties.

Ministerial Statements

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

The Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure wishes to make a statement on the initiation of the sign language legislation process. I am pleased that the Assembly is able to provide a signing service for this item. We are slightly ahead, but I hope that the signer will turn up soon. I think that we should proceed, Minister.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Before I begin my statement, I will refer to today's first item of business, which will, hopefully, allow time for the signer to come in. I wish everybody who is retiring from the House well. It has been a pleasure to work with everyone across all parties. There were cross exchanges at times, but I believe that most Members, if not all, have done their business with integrity. It was a privilege to work with them. I wish you, a Cheann Comhairle, all the best in your retirement. In particular, I mention my party colleague who is not standing again, Bronwyn McGahan. It has been an absolute privilege to work with her and everybody else.

I will now move on to the statement. With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I want to update the House on my intention to publish and consult on a framework for promoting sign language, including proposals for legislation.

On 1 December 2015, I announced my intention to publish and consult on a framework for promoting sign language that would include proposals for legislation to be taken forward in the new Assembly mandate. I outlined to the House that, although Irish and British sign languages were recognised as languages in their own right in 2004 by the then Secretary of State, Mr Paul Murphy, there was no statutory protection for either language, they were not covered by the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and there was no formal Executive-agreed policy or strategy document for Irish and British sign languages. I informed the House that I intended, with Members’ help, to change that position, and that remains the case.

I will outline the work that my Department has carried out to date on the three key actions that I announced on 1 December 2015: the pre-consultation, Executive engagement and public consultation. I announced my intention to engage in a period of pre-consultation. My officials held a series of preconsultation meetings in December 2015 and January 2016. Those meetings were held with a variety of key stakeholders, including representatives of the key deaf organisations on the sign language partnership group, members of the deaf community and parents of deaf children. Queen’s University, which has held a master's course for Irish and British sign language interpreters, and Ulster University, which is in the second year of a postgraduate certificate in education course for deaf Irish and British sign language teachers, also contributed to the process.

The concepts, views and ideas discussed during the preconsultation process have been incorporated into the draft framework.

The framework, therefore, is the product of meaningful and continuous dialogue with the key stakeholders. It was vital that every opportunity was given to the representatives of this marginalised community to contribute to the framework, which has the potential to change their lives by tackling social exclusion. The feedback from the pre-consultation is reflected in the co-designed nature of the framework document, of which the deaf community and its representatives can justifiably claim a sense of shared ownership.

As I informed the House in December, I had already written to ministerial colleagues to seek their support for and commitments to the framework. In November 2015, I wrote informing them of my intention to put forward an Executive paper outlining my Department’s policy proposals to support improvements to access to services for deaf sign language users and their families. At the same time, I forwarded a copy of the sign language road map review final report, which was the result of a deaf-led process of consultations between Damian Barry, who is the deaf author of the road map report, and Departments, amongst other stakeholders, to examine the provision of services to sign language users, with a series of recommendations on how to improve service provision.

Following the period of pre-consultation, I produced an Executive paper to accompany the sign language framework with proposals for legislation. The paper made the case for the need for such a framework with proposals for legislation and informed colleagues of my intention to publish and consult on the framework before the end of this month.

I have been encouraged by the support of ministerial colleagues to date, and I acknowledge their feedback and their suggestions in taking this process forward; indeed, I have been very encouraged by the support from Members of the House as a whole, including members of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee, whom my officials have briefed.

I acknowledge that the building of the sustainable infrastructure necessary to support Irish Sign Language and British Sign Language users and their families will involve financial investment, particularly in its early stages. There may be concerns in some quarters about such an investment in times of austerity. However, the Programme for Government 2011-15, priority 5, titled "Delivering High Quality and Efficient Public Services", states:

"Citizens have, whether in times of recession or not, the right to expect excellent public services and value for money. As an Executive, we are acutely aware of the need to deliver, and this is why we have identified this as a priority."

Sign language is about including some of the most marginalised people in our society, and it must be a priority for all of us. The framework and its accompanying proposals for legislation are predicated on the need to improve access to public services for a marginalised community that has experienced generations of inequality and social exclusion resulting from historical underinvestment in access to services through their language of need. When we are acutely aware of the poor life outcomes experienced by this community, the financial costs argument is less compelling.

My December statement acknowledged that this would be a challenging programme of work, but I have since taken the necessary steps to bring us to the point where we can publish and consult on the sign language framework with proposals for legislation. As I have outlined, I have ensured that the co-designed framework reflects the views and needs of the deaf community after an extensive period of pre-consultation. I have engaged with my Executive colleagues to seek their support for the policy proposals in the framework. Further Executive agreement will be sought in due course on the final policy proposals for legislation, following the consultation process and before agreement to draft the Bill is sought.

I want to outline the upcoming consultation process because it will be unique in the North of Ireland. My previous statement outlined that the consultation document would be made available in the form of an online survey, with additional formats on request, including Irish Sign Language and British Sign Language translations, and I went on to say that the 12-week consultation would be widely publicised and open to everyone who wished to respond. The consultation will now run for an extended period of 16 weeks. There are two reasons for that: first, in the run-up to the Assembly election, departmental representatives will not be able to attend public consultations; and, secondly, the extended time frame will ensure that key stakeholders and the community will have the opportunity to engage with departmental representatives after the election.

This will be the first time that the deaf community will have had the opportunity to engage in public consultation solely on their issues. The feedback that my officials have received from deaf organisations suggests that there will be a big demand from deaf persons to have their say, and rightly so. They have waited a long time for the opportunity.

Secondly, this will be a consultation on policy proposals for sign languages. Sign languages use hand shapes, movement of the hands, body language, facial expressions and lip patterns to convey meaning. They are visual languages, and this will be the first time in the North that a public consultation will be carried out with sign language as a primary method of communication. Therefore, the usual written medium for consultations will not suffice. The framework consultation documents will be translated into Irish and British sign languages, and, likewise, responses will be translated from those languages. The availability of language interpreters throughout the consultation may also impact on the ability of the deaf community to get its views across. The extended consultation period will allow for that. It is entirely appropriate and right that a framework co-designed with the deaf community for the deaf community should be delivered in their language of need.

My officials’ preconsultation meetings with the deaf organisations highlighted the use of social media by the Scottish deaf community during the consultation process that led to the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015. Facebook played a prominent role in sign language users responding to the consultation document in their native British Sign Language. It is my intention that this consultation will be sign language-friendly; after all, that is the point of the framework. Access to sign language should be viewed as a right and not an inconvenience. It is planned, therefore, to maximise social media opportunities. That will include setting up a Facebook page dedicated to the consultation that will allow people to submit responses in text or by video, enabling them to use sign language if they wish. The page will be promoted across the other official Executive social media and online platforms.

In short, the aims of the framework are described under three themes: prevention, to ensure that future generations of deaf children and young people reach adulthood with the best chance of securing full social inclusion and better life outcomes; correction, to increase social inclusion for the current generation of deaf people, many of whom have left education with few academic qualifications, by providing access to ongoing personal and social development to enable them to participate fully in their society; and care and protection, to recognise and protect the cultural and linguistic rights of Irish and British sign language users and to build the sustainable infrastructure necessary to promote and support them and their families.

Some may wonder how a framework can be translated from a document to society to make a meaningful difference to people’s lives. My view is that implementing the framework has already begun. In 2015-16, my Department has targeted increased funding at projects that outline a template of support for deaf people from birth to old age. I have committed funding to the National Deaf Children’s Society for increased numbers of family sign language courses, including courses delivered in the home by the British Deaf Association, to equip parents and families with the signing skills to communicate with their deaf children. Research highlights that such early intervention communication can improve educational outcomes for deaf children.

DCAL is also funding Jordanstown School to deliver British Sign Language levels 1 and 2 courses for parents of deaf children who wish to develop their signing skills with their children. I was delighted to visit those classes in January of this year and meet the parents and their children. I have the utmost admiration for their drive and determination to give their children the best possible start in life, and I am determined to help them through this framework. My Department is also funding St Joseph’s Centre for Deaf People to deliver deaf awareness and age-specific British Sign Language classes across 40 primary schools in counties Antrim and Down. In addition, selected secondary schools are receiving deaf awareness and Irish or British sign language classes through our funding of Ulster University’s signing for improved deaf awareness project.

That project also delivers such classes to all four university campuses to make them deaf-friendly and to inspire the future professionals who will deliver services to deaf children to learn sign language.

DCAL has also funded Action Deaf Youth to deliver a British Sign Language level 1 course for deaf children and young people and for children of deaf adults to promote social inclusion and to provide the qualifications necessary for future careers as interpreters and sign language tutors. Those DCAL-funded projects directly contribute to the prevention aim of the framework. We have previously funded such courses up to level 6, which has enabled young deaf people to access those careers. This year's funding represents the start of a new cycle that will hopefully build up to level 6 courses over the next few years.

DCAL has committed funding to the translation of material for the driving theory test into British Sign Language. That will help deaf people learn to drive and potentially increase their employment options. My Department is also funding the Foyle Sign Language Centre in Derry to deliver Irish and British sign language courses to the families of older generation sign language users to allow them to communicate more effectively with their parents and grandparents. That funding also delivers deaf awareness and sign language classes to local businesses and the voluntary community to encourage greater social integration between older sign language users and the local community, as well as providing for social activities The projects contribute to the correction aim of the framework.

The care and protection aim of the framework is self-explanatory. In my December statement, I informed the House that I had listened carefully to what the deaf community was saying. They want legislation to safeguard their right as a cultural and linguistic community and want to access services in their own language. In short, they want the care and protection that sign language legislation will bring. This has been a challenging programme of work, and I thank the deaf community and other stakeholders for their engagement and their contributions to the framework.

In December, I asked this question of each and every Member of the House: what choices would you make if your child or grandchild was born unable to hear? I also referred to Emma, the hearing mother of a young deaf son, Patrick, who highlighted the difficulties that families such as hers face when they are informed that their child is deaf. I have met Emma several times, and I know the choices that she is making for Patrick. She is leading a growing number of parents of deaf children who are speaking up for children and demanding better interventions for their child and their family.

As I have stated previously, I believe that one word sums up why we must deliver Executive recognition of and protection for sign language: "inclusion". Current and future generations of sign language users and their families must have access to the services that our Departments provide in their own language. Patrick deserves the same rights, accessibility and inclusion throughout our society as his hearing peers will enjoy. I encourage you and your constituents to respond to the consultation and ensure that Patrick and deaf adults and children across the North receive those rights.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The members of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee, across all the parties, were very supportive of the initiative. There is a recognition that more work needs to be done in the area to meet the needs of people in the deaf community, so people are very supportive of that.

The Minister pointed out that you cannot really put a cost on these things, but, if we are to look at things that might be done going forward, does she have some sense of the costs? Is she happy to make sure that the resources will be made available?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

First, I thank the Chair of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee for his continued support. He is right to say — I mentioned this in my statement — that there are some difficulties in getting absolute costings at this stage. However, there will be emerging themes as the consultation process develops. Indeed, there were emerging themes in the preconsultation process around tuition, sign language classes for British and Irish sign language tuition and support for families. We already know what those costs are, but they are likely to increase. We will also have to try to predict what additional services will be needed.

The final cost will be published when the Bill is brought to the future Executive for support. Without making any assumptions and albeit that the costs will certainly be higher in the first instance, I believe that it will be money well worth spending, particularly given the legacy of inequality that this community has faced. I believe that all Members want to put right that wrong.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I thank the Minister for the statement. It is very welcome among the deaf community, with whom I work closely, particularly the Hands That Talk folk in Dungiven. I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on the provision of a signer here today. It is important that, when we deal with this issue, signing is provided. Thank you for that.

Will the Minister outline what support she has given to sign language users?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. As I outlined in the statement, the support that we have given in DCAL has ensured that sign language classes for parents and family members take place. There was a gap there, and we met it. We have also provided good leadership. With my officials, I have invested a lot of time in ensuring that, once the road map was brought forward and the gaps were identified, we very quickly tried to meet those gaps. That is why we did the pre-consultation and why we are putting it out for consultation today. I have no doubt that that will be continued by the people who brought the process to us thus far and my officials. I believe that all Members, going back to December of last year right through to today, will give good regard and respect to the consultation and will encourage full involvement and participation in it to ensure that support for the deaf community is not left with the Department. We all need to come in behind a group who have faced decades of discrimination through a lack of investment and inclusion.

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

I thank the Minister for her statement. It is a very proud day: this has been brought to the House on the last day of business.

Our party is very supportive of the proposals to promote and increase the use of British and Irish sign language. Ahead of the debate, I made enquiries with the events team in Parliament Buildings to ensure that we offered sign language tour experiences here. I was pleased to learn that we do with prior notice. Will the Minister advise whether, during the preconsultation period, any assessment was carried out in departmental arm's-length bodies, such as the Northern Ireland Museums Council, to ensure that sign language tours and educational programmes are offered at every venue? If not, will she ensure that such an assessment is carried out?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for her comments and, indeed, her support as a member of the CAL Committee. It is not just the museums; I suspect that every ALB right across each of the Departments will provide sign language support on request. The deaf community say that that prohibits them from accessing culture, arts and leisure and all Executive services across the board on an equal relationship with others. That needs to be corrected. I would be absolutely shocked if that did not come out as part of the consultation.

The Assembly, through the Speaker's office and events, has led by example, but, again, it is on request. When we are looking at and organising events and people are asked about the requirements that they have, once those requirements are made known, provision happens. In my opinion, for tours that are organised across all the Departments, including my ALBs, it should be built in rather than having to be asked for. I would like to see that being corrected as part of the consultation process.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I also thank the Minister for her very full paper this afternoon. I was going to ask about cost, but that has been covered. Obviously, from the point of view of using signing and having available an Irish version and a British version, there could be complications.

I am just wondering about tours, for example, where it would probably be over the top to have two, with one obviously having to be more dominant. How similar are the sign languages?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I believe the Member's question is based on the intent to give this as much support as possible. The sign languages are based around Irish Sign Language and British Sign Language. In November, I went to a world conference for the deaf that was hosted in Belfast. There are differences even within British Sign Language. For example, colleagues from Scotland were talking about differences in what they use compared with those from Australia. This is Sign Language Week, as luck would have it, and some of the participants who were up yesterday were talking about the differences in the languages.

Let us try to be as inclusive as we can. I think that, up until this point, all Members have tried to show respect and due regard — I do not believe this will not be the case from here on in — and to be as inclusive as possible. Let us use the consultation process to find out as best we can exactly what the needs are. Let us, collectively across each of our parties, put our best foot forward to try to ensure that people in the deaf community have services, information and access and can participate like the rest of us.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

I certainly welcome the statement. There appears to be a lot of best practice out there, particularly in countries such as the Scandinavian countries, that have been a bit in front of us here in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister ensure that, in promoting sign language, best practice will be gleaned from other jurisdictions?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The short answer is "Yes", but I just want to let the Member know that we have some of the best experts here on our own shores. From as far back as 2004 and going right through, those experts have delivered a very robust road map. They have taken all the expertise and experience from right across and tried to build the best possible road map for deaf families here. They have already done that. We should not undervalue or fail to appreciate the skills and expertise that we have here. We have them here, and we need to support them.

I believe that the consultation period will not only support the work that has been done thus far but will help inform the Assembly, the Executive, future Assembly mandates and all the arm's-length bodies in going forward. These people not only have the expertise but are making progression plans to pass those skills and that expertise on to the next generation. In fairness to them, they are way ahead of the rest of us. This consultation process is very important to ensure that, whatever legislature they are responsible for and accountable to, we get the expertise and experience of everyone who has brought this forward. We will then build that in so that we have the best possible legislation for our deaf families here.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I thank the Minister for her statement. The Minister mentioned the Scottish Act in her statement. Is she aware that the Scottish legislation is based on a national plan, whereby local authorities contribute? Will the consultation include the Scottish plan?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Again, the short answer is "Yes, it will". In Scotland, all the local authorities, government bodies and arm's-length bodies signed up to a plan. We want to have legislation not only to give protection to those who need sign language support but to ensure that services and goods and, more importantly, access are available to members of our deaf community. So, yes, we will look at Scotland and at the Scandinavian countries, but we will go as far as Australia and New Zealand. We will go as far as we can to look at examples of other legislatures to ensure that we have the best possible legislation for our deaf constituents and deaf families.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive statement. I was not meant to be in the Chamber; I just happened to be sitting here. I am glad that she brought up Emma and Patrick, because it was my office that Emma contacted in May 2013. I have to say "Thank you" to the Minister and her Department, because, as soon as I contacted the Minister, she set up a meeting straight away with the Department. She understood straight away the need for Emma to converse with her son. I appreciate the work that was done there, and I am sure that the Minister will agree with me not only as the Minister but as a parent that it is essential that parents who have deaf children are able to converse with them at the earliest stage so that they have the best chance in life.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I agree with the Member and thank her for the work that she did to support Emma, Patrick and the entire family. It is really important, as I saw at first hand in January. Any parent, grandparent or other family member will appreciate and enjoy the communication that they have with family members — and that is for hearing family members. I can only imagine how important communication is for those, particularly children, who are deaf. It is really important. Communication is how we all evolve and develop as individuals. Without the support, I can only imagine how difficult it has been, particularly for generations of families who have been through this.

This is a good day. Karen McKevitt was right that it is a proud day for the Assembly. We are all going forward collectively to recognise that there have been gaps in the past, to have those gaps filled and to get the strongest and most robust legislation possible to ensure that those inequalities are confined to the past.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for her statement. I apologise to the House for being late: I was at the ETI Committee, and the ETI Minister was in attendance.

The Minister talked in her answers about inequality. She will agree and has said in her statement that the inclusivity of these services across Northern Ireland is vital. How can we ensure, when we come to the delivery of the services after the consultation, that inclusivity is the reality across the community and across the country?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member is right to point out that, first of all, it has to be inclusive. It must be inclusive, and, if legislation is passed and this becomes law — I hope that it will — I hope that people will be proactive and will try to embrace the way in which they can provide inclusion. That is very important to me, as it is important for all Members.

The consultation period is crucial, particularly for service providers, should they be in local government or in services or through the arm's-length bodies of my Department and other Departments. Where our Departments have a public-facing element, we must ensure that the new legislation not only provides access but enables participation. It is important that that is done in a meaningful way that not only meets a legislative obligation but meets the obligation of the individual who may be accessing those services.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. With your permission, I wish to make a statement to the House on the development of an Ulster-Scots academy and an Irish language academy.

Irish and Ulster Scots are key aspects of our cultural heritage and identity. Considering the legacy we have to deal with, it is unsurprising that many people see themselves as being 100% from one culture or the other. Of course, anyone who has visited the Public Record Office and delved into their family history will soon learn that it is often a lot more complicated than that. That is a strength. We have a range of cultures and heritages to draw from, all of which have their strengths and benefits. I encourage everyone to embrace this and draw from all areas of our culture to help define and create the future.

As an Executive, we are committed to tackling poverty and social exclusion. We want all our people to live happy and fulfilled lives. That means ensuring that they have access not only to the basics of life but to culture, heritage and tradition. Not only will that approach benefit individuals, but it will strengthen us as a society and enable future generations to experience and appreciate the unique culture that we have to offer.

However, it is not for politicians to suggest how a culture should develop. Our role is to ensure that there are networks, structures and organisations in place to facilitate its development and to ensure that our cultural roots remain accessible to all in our society.

Today, I will set out how the work to develop an Ulster-Scots academy and an Irish language academy will be taken forward. I will speak first about the Ulster-Scots academy.

The idea for an Ulster-Scots academy first emerged into public view in the early 1990s. The Belfast Agreement in 1998 acknowledged the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity and made specific reference to Ulster Scots. Ulster Scots was recognised by the British Government in 2001 under Part II of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Other political imperatives include the joint declaration by the British and Irish Governments in 2003 and the St Andrew’s Agreement in 2006, both of which gave a commitment that the British Government would take steps to encourage the establishment of an Ulster-Scots academy.

As Minister for Culture, Arts and Leisure, I have been very proactive in my support for Ulster-Scots culture and, specifically, the commitment in the Ulster-Scots strategy to establish an Ulster-Scots academy. That is why my Department, through the ministerial advisory group, invested nearly £4 million and has taken forward over 80 Ulster-Scots research and development projects.

On 25 January, I gave a written statement to the Assembly to update Members on the review by the ministerial advisory group of the Ulster-Scots academy and my decision not to extend the appointment of its chair and members beyond 31 December 2015. I advised the Assembly that I had asked the Ulster-Scots Agency, working with my Department, to draft proposals to establish an Ulster-Scots academy, and I set up a programme board in my Department to assist with that work. Those decisions were based on the recommendations from a review of the ministerial advisory group, which was conducted by a member of the Strategic Investment Board.

The review commented positively on the significant contribution that the ministerial advisory group had made but concluded that it had taken its work as far as it could. I would like to state publicly how much I appreciate the contribution that the group made. The work undertaken by the ministerial advisory group will be of lasting value to the future of the Ulster-Scots academy.

I have now received the proposals from the Ulster-Scots Agency. In drafting them, the Ulster-Scots Agency consulted with key stakeholders in the Ulster-Scots sector. I am grateful to those stakeholders for their input.

The proposals are set in the context of the 'Strategy to Enhance and Develop the Ulster-Scots Language, Heritage and Culture 2015–2035'. The strategy sets out a framework for Ulster Scots over the next 20 years in a wide range of areas such as education, the media, use of Ulster Scots and public services. It also emphasises the tourism potential of Ulster-Scots language, heritage and culture and seeks to develop and maximise the social and economic benefits of that. The new academy will align closely to the strategy and also build upon the achievements of the ministerial advisory group. I am happy to accept the proposals as the basis for moving forward.

Based on the proposals, the Ulster-Scots academy will be known as the Ulster-Scots Institute and will be a not-for-profit company with charitable status. It will become part of the Ulster-Scots Hub and will be located at the Corn Exchange in the Cathedral Quarter of Belfast. That is the most cost-effective location, as it will maximise opportunities for the sharing of resources with the Ulster-Scots Agency.

The institute will have a chair and voluntary board of directors who will be responsible for the effective corporate governance of the organisation. It will have a voluntary advisory council, comprising individuals with an interest in Ulster Scots and a relevant track record of research or writing to help shape the research priorities of the organisation, as well as expertise in organisation and community and economic and social development.

There will initially be seven core staff headed by a director. The core staff will be supplemented for the purpose of research by placement students and paid interns from local universities. For the purpose of lifelong learning, the staff will be supplemented by a bank of tutors, who will be engaged on a call-off basis to support the delivery of a programme of community education classes.

The institute’s functions will relate to two strands, namely research and community engagement. It will not be a grant-awarding organisation. It will build on the knowledge base associated with Ulster Scots by undertaking research in relation to all aspects of Ulster-Scots language, culture and heritage. It will circulate its research findings to a range of audiences through a variety of traditional and digital platforms. It will also foster interest in Ulster Scots at community level through the delivery of lifelong learning opportunities such as workshops and accredited courses.

For it to be successful, its work must make a positive impact on the community at large. It will ensure that the focus of its work will not just be about physical outputs such as books, podcasts and television programmes but will have the potential to change society for the better with outcomes, and it will lead to a stronger community through the promotion of social inclusion and the creation of jobs and tourism initiatives that will generate an economic return.

There will be a schedule of priorities, focused on community engagement, which recognise the specific challenges of urban and rural areas, gender and age. The institute will be funded through the Ulster-Scots Agency, which will manage the funding through its existing robust governance arrangements. It will be funded for an initial period of three years, with continuation of funding subject to the successful delivery of set objectives.

We have listened to the Ulster-Scots sector, and it has identified the need for an organisation that can deliver its research independently, with academic rigour, and the freedom to plan for the long term. The role of the institute has been shaped to ensure that it complements and adds value to the work of the Ulster-Scots Agency and the Ulster-Scots Community Network. The research that the institute produces and the cultural products and programmes developed from that will become the foundations for its work, building an engaged community that can articulate the things that are important to it, affirming its identity and ready to share its culture with everyone.

I believe that these proposals represent the best way forward, and I expect the institute to be up and running by the end of this calendar year.

I am also pleased to tell Members that I gave approval to proceed with an Ulster-Scots Líofa-style language and cultural development initiative on 18 December 2015. The first stage of the initiative — a series of 14 taster workshops across the North — is already under way. Seven workshops have taken place, and the rest will be delivered by the end of March. The initiative is being marketed under the Discover Ulster Scots brand.

I will now turn to the Irish language academy or, as it is known in Irish, an Gaelacadamh. Let me say that I support the passion and commitment that people from across the communities bring to learning Irish or Ulster Scots. Both have a rich and unique heritage that benefits everyone. We should work together to cherish and develop both languages and cultures in accordance with their needs.

The idea of an Irish language academy was first tabled by Foras na Gaeilge in 2006 in response to the increased demand to learn the language through adult learning and Irish-medium education. That created a clear need for the provision of Irish outside the traditional school environment. The launch of Líofa in 2011 quickened the pace of growth. The great strength of adult learning of Irish has always been at community level. In the past few years, the development of the Irish language has been remarkable, but the accelerated growth has also resulted in many gaps in provision and a complex set of needs, both social and economic. These developments lead me to conclude that the early establishment of an Irish language academy is a must-do.

In making this decision, I took due account of the responsibilities to the Irish language under the Belfast Agreement and articles 7 and 8 of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Article 7 relates to the need to provide support for the provision of appropriate forms and means for the teaching and study of Irish and the promotion of study and research. Article 8, likewise, relates to professional and technical training in Irish, should there be reasonable demand for it. There is also a statutory duty to encourage and facilitate Irish-medium education, as pointed out in the 2009 Department of Education review. Irish-medium education should be a continuum, with progression throughout levels of development. The Irish language academy can help to ensure that young people in Irish-medium education have uninterrupted access, from post-primary through to vocational training, through Irish.

I asked that a scoping and consultation exercise be carried out on the establishment of an academy. It considered how economic and social development and employment opportunities in relation to the Irish language could be developed, together with adult learning, within the framework of the Irish language academy. I wanted the consultation to scope out the attitude to, and the awareness and perceptions of, an Irish language academy. Irish language development must be sustainable. Therefore, I asked for practical and deliverable recommendations that have Irish language community and stakeholder understanding and buy-in. I also asked that the scoping and consultation exercise build upon and update a 2013 feasibility study on the Irish language academy, taking account of many important recent developments.

The scoping exercise consulted a range of organisations and individuals in the sector and was coupled with rigorous interviewing techniques. It built on the previous Irish language feasibility study, which had involved other relevant stakeholders. That maximised the impact and sectoral inclusiveness of the research process. I am very satisfied with the consultation process and the overall approach. It has proven very effective in assessing current provision and in developing robust sustainable recommendations for the Irish language academy. I extend my thanks to everyone who engaged so comprehensively with the consultation. The consultation process found that there are large gaps in current provision, especially in the areas of teaching and learning resources, accreditation structures, vocational courses aimed at ages 16-plus, and adult teacher training and support.

I now turn to the specific recommendations. There should be provision of a Gaelacadamh in a central location, with a large consensus on the Gaeltacht Quarter as the location. Moneys should be used to create resources for use across the North. There should be a specific role for Gaelchúrsaí, the Irish-medium vocational training provider. The roles, responsibilities and leadership role of the academy should be clearly set out. Progression routes for a new generation of learners, as well as mechanisms for ensuring cooperation between providers and sharing best practice, should be put in place.

Today, I am accepting the outcome of the scoping and consultation exercise. I accept, subject to further work being undertaken, all six recommendations. I am satisfied that, taken together, the recommendations provide a practical and deliverable basis for going forward with an Irish language academy and have the required level of Irish language community and stakeholder understanding and buy-in.

I am satisfied that the recommendations, when implemented, will form the necessary basis and framework for an academy that will ensure the delivery of consistent high-quality adult learning in Irish that is viable and sustainable; is fully in accord with the community focus and the economic and social regeneration and employment aims that I have set for the academy; can play a key role in reducing poverty and increasing social inclusion; will provide a high-quality training experience for young people and ensure that adequate pathways are available to progress to further study and employment through the Irish language; and align closely with my Department's policies and strategies on Irish language development, including the 2015-2035 strategy, to enhance and protect the Irish language and the action plan commitments to the Ceathrú Gaeltachta.

The key issues and recommendations drawn from the research and analysis in the scoping exercise will inform the values and delivery of the academy during its early years. In line with practice, the Irish language academy will now be taken forward through normal business case procedures. The various elements of the academy, including the academic focus on high-quality adult learning and the community focus on economic and social regeneration and employment, will be subject to competitive tendering. Resources have been set aside for 2016-17 to ensure that this is taken forward.

In conclusion, I hope that this statement is seen for what it is: a declaration of my clear commitment to the continued support of Ulster-Scots and Irish language culture in the future. By developing, understanding and sharing the range of cultures that we are lucky enough to have, we can only enhance communities and build a thoroughly modern and compassionate society.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for her statement. A lot of issues will probably require further exploration, but will she tell us how much in revenue and capital funds have been allocated for each of the two initiatives over the next three years?

Secondly, is there not an inequality in the case of the Irish language academy, which will be based in the Gaeltacht Quarter and will, therefore, probably be a social economy-type initiative, whereby the money is recycled back into the sector because they will own the building, whereas because the Ulster-Scots Institute is relocating to the hub, that means that money will be paid out of the system to the developer who owns the building.

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

Finally, I have heard references of her promoting the idea of a James Connolly interpretive centre. Can she assure us that it is in no way connected to the Irish language academy, or with Forbairt Feirste, which will probably be doing the Irish language project?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I will take the Member's last point first. The promotion of the James Connolly interpretive centre, or indeed the Somme Centre, will in no way be connected to the Ulster Scots Institute or the Gaelacadamh — the Irish language academy. On revenue, the imbalance is skewed in favour of the Ulster-Scots Institute. Over £1 million of revenue will be dedicated to the staff over the next three years. On the Gaelacadamh, it is probably less than £150,000 per year, but there will be money for the purchase and refurbishment of a building once a successful business case has been completed.

The Member knows that I have encouraged the Ulster-Scots community to identify a cultural hub, and, in fact, I encouraged them to use the Oldpark Library, which I was prepared to gift them. It was not suitable, and they have since looked at other venues that were not suitable, but the offer is still open.

I totally agree with the Member that it would be much better for social and economic regeneration; not only would they own their own premises, but that would help to sustain and replenish the Ulster-Scots Institute. So, that offer is still there. I know that the arrangements for rent are probably contractual, but they could use that time to start looking at a more preferred option. I encourage the Member to use his influence, and for others to do likewise.

This is a good day for the Ulster-Scots Institute and for the Irish language academy, because it shows the Assembly supporting the work of two strong cultural entities that together will — and they have, and do, work together — provide a legacy of support for generations to come.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I ask the Minister to provide details of what assurance there will be to ensure that the work of the institute is of good quality.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I have complete confidence that the new institute, as it is now known, will build upon the robust leadership and governance of support of the Ulster-Scots Agency, which I believe is what I have said it to be, and will involve the network, and, indeed, other Members who may have been involved with the ministerial advisory group. It will be subject to the scrutiny of my Department, based on assurance reports from the Ulster-Scots Agency. More importantly, it will be based on the needs of the sector itself. In the past, attempts were made to do it, but there were missed opportunities. I believe that the institute will now put its best foot forward and bring forward proposals and suggestions that are reflective of the needs there. Once they are brought forward, they will be promoted and proposed by the Ulster-Scots Agency and scrutinised and made accountable by my Department.

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

I was going to ask the Minister how close we are to seeing the production of dictionaries for both languages, but then I noticed that there was a difference. I ask her to explain why the Ulster-Scots Institute should proceed as a not-for-profit company with charitable status, while the same does not apply to the Irish language academy. Perhaps she might answer both questions.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I will take the Member's last question first. The Ulster-Scots Institute will be taken forward because it is completely new. It is important that we set out the governance arrangements and its legal and charitable status from the very outset.

The Gaelacadamh — the Irish language academy — is to be done by the secretariat for the Gaeltacht Quarter, which is Forbairt Feirste. It has a proven track record not only of delivering and leading on the Gaeltacht Quarter plan but in its own right. It has charitable status and all its articles and memorandums, so everything is in place. It has a proven track record, as does the Ulster-Scots Agency. It was clear, because the institute is completely new, that I would set out the structures on which it would be governed and developed.

I have asked the question about the dictionaries since coming into the Department. For Ulster Scots, the answer is simply that there has never been agreement in the Ulster-Scots community. There is a summary. Public money was spent on delivering a summary or a glossary of terms, but I believe that the institute will be looking to bring forward a dictionary. There is none at the minute.

Regarding the dictionary for the Irish language, Foras na Gaeilge has spent millions of pounds of public money, so it needs to be published. In my opinion, if it is not published this year, it will lose all credibility. I believe that, when groups on the ground are struggling and there is the notion that additional public money from this Government and the Irish Government is being ploughed into a dictionary project that people cannot see an outcome to, it will not be given the support that it has received unless it is published by the end of this year.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Both bodies are treated alike, in the sense that we expect social inclusion, the creation of jobs, tourism initiatives and economic returns. Will you flesh that out a wee bit for us?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I hope that I am wrong on this, but the Member is almost pointing out what they are expected to do, as if they cannot do it. They are already doing it. They are already providing economic tourism potential, but we need to develop that. We certainly need to develop it more around the points that the Committee Chair mentioned on ownership of the project, ownership of the building, economic sustainability and the potential for regenerating not only the community but projects in it. The institute and the Gaelacadamh are important in that regard. They are doing it at different levels now, but we need to ensure that they are given as much support as possible to do more of it.

They need to demonstrate what impact they have had on each community and across communities. The challenge is theirs. I believe that I have done a lot of the heavy lifting. The communities are ready for this. They have been involved in the processes over a period of years and in recent months. The tell me that they can do it and that they want to do it. They need our support to do it. We have set out that stall today.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for her statement. The higher and further education sectors have suffered severe cuts to their budgets, so much so that the University of Ulster had to axe the whole of its languages department. How can the Minister justify the economic case for the creation of the two academies?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

First, her party colleague the Minister for Employment and Learning made the decision to cut language courses; I did not. I want to get that on the record. Secondly, the main priority is that we ensure that these communities are not further disadvantaged. There already have been cuts to programmes on the Irish language: I want to ensure that that does not become a trend. Apart from anything else and more importantly, both communities, the Gaelacadamh and the Ulster-Scots Institute have, with limited budgets, identified needs, and they will do so in the future with limited budgets. I can proudly stand over my statements. More importantly, the obligation to set up both academies was set out in agreements going back over a decade. It is unacceptable that from then until now we have established neither an institute nor a Gaelacadamh. I regret that Minister Farry has made his decisions, but I will not let his lack of vision stop me progressing for the two communities.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for her statement. I welcome the creation of the Ulster-Scots hub, but I share the view of my colleague from North Belfast that the Ulster-Scots academy needs to be community-centred as a resource to build capacity and competency in that community.

I see that the structure for the Ulster-Scots academy is set out clearly in the Minister's statement. I want to ask the Minister about the Irish academy. Where will it be centred? What will its structure be? How much will be spent on the development of that academy as it goes forward?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Yours are quite similar to the questions asked by your colleague from North Belfast. I repeat: the structure that was set out for the institute was based on the work of the Ulster-Scots Agency. If that changes, it will be done with the approval of the Department for Communities. I anticipate that the structure that is out there at the minute will be built on, particularly by people in the community.

We are using Forbairt Feirste for the Gaelacadamh because it is the secretariat for the Gaeltacht Quarter plan. That will be built on as well.

I cannot go in and develop an Ulster-Scots hub. I have tried. I have offered premises and support. It is not my fault that the community did not identify somewhere else. Rather than waiting for that to happen — if we were to wait for that to happen in the same way as we are waiting for a dictionary to come forward, it would not happen — we identified Corn Exchange as a cultural hub. I encourage people to see it as a temporary arrangement and to use the time until the leases are up to identify other places that they can own and claim as their own and where they can provide economic and regeneration opportunities. It is not my fault that the community did not do that. I encourage Members from your party and, indeed, your community to give as much support as possible and create the demand and need. Once that is done, I anticipate that the Department would give its support.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an dá ráiteas seo ag an Aire inniu agus molaim iad. I welcome both statements from the Minister today and commend them.

An dtig liom a fhiafraí den Aire cad é mar a bheidh an Gaelacadamh ábalta caighdeán acadúil a ardú agus díriú isteach ar riachtanais áitiúla? Can the Minister tell me how the Gaelacadamh will combine academic standards with a focus on local needs and community needs?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for her question. It is important because, I think, the first piece of work that was done, particularly around the Gaelacadamh, was done with an academic approach with nothing for the vocational end of it. An element of academia is needed, certainly to look at standards, as the Member has mentioned, that go right across the board, so that, in theory, you should be able to go to an Irish class anywhere and get the same standard regardless of where you go without having to rely on brilliant múinteoirí, teachers or whoever the tutor may be.

One of the gaps that has been missing is due to the lack of support, particularly at the vocational level and for groups like Gaelchúrsaí, through higher and further education. There is a big, growing gap out there, particularly for children and young people and even for adult returners to education. That needs to be met. That gap is getting wider instead of decreasing. Given the question posed by Anna Lo about how this could be justified, this is more reason for doing it. When it came to looking at what cuts to make, it seemed that the Irish language was the first place that people went to. We need to correct that. There have been exercises through consultation, feasibility studies, engagements and interviews that have been used to determine what the needs are. The Ulster-Scots Institute and the Gaelacadamh will go forward on the basis of evidence and need from the community and processes for both. That is the best way that we can do this and build on that experience and on the developing and emerging needs as we go forward.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

First of all, the Minister might want to retract her statement trying to blame our colleague for the reduction of language services in the university. As I understand it, it was a decision made by the university, not by the Minister.

In her statement, the Minister said that the idea of an Ulster-Scots academy was first mooted in 1990. I can recall, about that time, when there was property either rented or purchased in Newtownards. It lay idle for a long time — God knows how long — because there was no support for such an activity.

What guarantee does the Minister offer that the latest proposal will not be yet another drain on very scarce resources?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

First of all, let me clarify my position. I know that some in the Member's party are in denial about the deficit of our Budget as a result of the erosion of the block grant by the Tory party. It is not political rhetoric; it is true. The erosion of the block grant and the decisions that each of the Departments had to take have been made. You are right: the university made the decision, but it made it on the basis of money. I believe the university made the wrong decision and that there needed to be leadership from a Minister, regardless of how their grant was affected, to make decisions. I have done it in my Department, and other Ministers needed to do the same thing.

I also met the Member's colleague on Gaelchúrsa, and I was absolutely shocked at the lack of support that was given to that community, particularly for children and young people. However, I do not know and do not remember the premises that the Member is talking about, but I accept what he is saying and that that is his perception.

I saw other Members nodding their heads. A decision was made to purchase or to rent or lease a building that was not used. I want to ensure that that does not happen here. That is why we agreed to the Corn Exchange. It is down to Members right across the Chamber, not just within the DUP, to ensure that they give proper leadership and do not nitpick or cherry-pick around the Ulster-Scots Institute and Gaelacadamh to make sure that they meet the needs of the community and the people whom we all serve, rather than the needs of some political parties.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. My North Belfast colleague Nelson McCausland and I directly asked the Minister about the level of funding that will be put in to the new Irish language academy, and the Minister failed to answer those questions. Is that good enough in this House?

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

It is at the discretion of the Minister to give the answers. It is not for me to make a judgement on that.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Further to that point of order, a LeasCheann Comhairle, I mentioned it, but maybe because the Member was late or maybe was not listening —

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I was here.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

OK; let me repeat it. The Ulster-Scots institute will receive over £1 million in revenue, and, when it comes forward with its robust proposal for premises and on the basis of an economic appraisal and business case, that will be considered. It did not do it in the past —

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

The Irish language is what I am talking about.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Irish language will get less than £150,000 a year. When the proposals for premises are brought forward, which they have been, they will be considered. So, it is much less than the Ulster-Scots Institute has got thus far. That has answered your question. The difficulty with the Member is that, like previous answers, he got an answer to his question, but he just does not like the answer that he got.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

You did not answer it.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Yes, I did.

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

Order, please. That was not a point of order, but I am sure the Member and the Minister are happy that they got their very strong views on the record on the final day of this Assembly. That concludes questions on the statement.

Executive Committee Business

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I beg to move

That the Departments (Transfer of Functions) Order (Northern Ireland) 2016 be affirmed.

This debate is the first of two that will be held today to complete the statutory processes needed to accomplish the reduction in the number of Departments promised in the Stormont House Agreement and reaffirmed in the Fresh Start document.

In the months since the completion of the Fresh Start Agreement in November last year, the legislation needed to reduce the number of Departments from 12 to nine and to realign functions has been progressed and is now almost complete. The Departments Act needed to establish the statutory framework for the nine-Department model was passed in this Assembly on 2 February, and the First Minister and deputy First Minister have since made a commencement order to bring its operative provisions into effect from 8 May 2016, shortly after the election.

The First Minister and deputy First Minister have also made a transfer of functions order to reallocate statutory responsibilities between the nine Departments. The purpose of the motion before Members today is to have that order affirmed by the Assembly, as required by the Departments (NI) Order 1999, which is the parent legislation for the transfer of functions order.

The making of the order and its affirmation by the Assembly are essential to the restructuring process. The purpose of the order is to transfer statutory functions from one Department to another so that the allocation of departmental responsibilities after the election reflects the finalised arrangements in appendix F5 of the 'Fresh Start' document. The nine future Departments after the election will incorporate all the powers, functions and services of their 12 predecessors. No functions are done away with, and no policies are terminated, as a consequence of restructuring.

Reform of the structures of government here has been an issue for a long time. There has been a commitment in the Programme for Government to agree changes to the structures that will apply in the next mandate, and, in 2012, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee produced a report on the reduction in the number of Departments. In 2014, the Stormont House Agreement contained a commitment to a nine-Department model being established in time for the 2016 election, with the future allocation of departmental functions to be agreed by the parties.

The Executive discussed departmental restructuring on several occasions in the early months of last year and decided on the names and responsibilities of the future Departments. On 2 March last year, those decisions were announced to the Assembly by the former First Minister. The allocation of functions was further refined during the talks process that led to the Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan last November. The final allocation of functions was set out in appendix F5 of the 'Fresh Start' document. The Departments Bill was introduced in the Assembly shortly after that.

Throughout 2015, a scoping exercise was conducted across the Departments to identify existing statutory functions in primary legislation that might need to be transferred. That was a complex undertaking, and the work required careful checking by legal advisers. However, completion of the task before the end of 2015 enabled a draft transfer of functions order reflective of the future departmental responsibilities as set out in appendix F5 of the 'Fresh Start' document to be prepared and issued for scrutiny by the Committee for OFMDFM in January.

Officials briefed the Committee on the purpose and content of the order in late January. We are grateful to the Committee for its urgent work in considering the order, and to the other statutory Committees that contributed to the process. We acknowledge the pressure that the Committee had to face given the limited time frame available. I am pleased to say that the Committee's report to the Department, which we received on 11 February, advised that it was content for the order to be made.

I would like to briefly explain the structure of the transfer of functions order. Article 1 cites its title and provides for its coming into operation to coincide with the operative date of the Departments Act (NI) 2016. Article 2 contains definitions of a number of terms used in the order, key amongst those being that "transfer date" means the date on which section 1 of the Departments Act comes into operation, and that will be 8 May 2016.

The substantive part of the order is organised by reference to the six Departments from which statutory functions are transferring, and schedules 1 to 5 are further subdivided by reference to the future Departments that will receive those functions. Where a significant part of a dissolving Department is transferring to one future Department, there is no need to specify all transferring functions. Articles 9 and 10 of the order provide for the continuity of legislation, documents, legal proceedings and other activities and for the transfer of assets and liabilities. Finally, article 11 references schedule 6, which contains necessary amendments to legislation needed to give effect to the transfers.

With the Executive's agreement, the order was made on 25 February by the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly in exercise of powers conferred by article 8 of the Departments (NI) Order 1999. However, it can only have effect if it is affirmed by the Assembly, and, in line with article 1, it will come into operation on 8 May, shortly after the election. The order is an essential part of the restructuring process and is a natural complement to the Departments Act passed by the Assembly just last month. It is vital that the order is affirmed if we are to achieve the timetable for restructuring set in the Stormont House Agreement and realise the benefits of a more streamlined and efficient Administration. I commend the motion to the Assembly and request that the order be affirmed.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Mr Deputy Speaker, perhaps you will first grant me an opportunity to respond to devastating news reaching the Assembly that a prison officer from my constituency has died further to the evil terrorist attack on his life on 4 March. I take this opportunity to send my heartfelt and deepest sympathy to the family and loved ones of this brave man and my support to his colleagues, who work courageously to serve every member of this community to keep us safe. This Assembly and our entire community must redouble our support for prison officers and the heroic work that they do, and we must isolate the men and women of violence who are involved in this. Finally, I call on anyone with information to search their conscience and soul and provide the PSNI with the information needed to ensure that the evil intent of these men and women does not prevail in our community. I thank you for the opportunity to do that, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Trying to move on, I rise to speak on behalf of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister on the Departments (Transfer of Functions) Order. I thank the junior Minister for her opening remarks on the motion.

At its meeting on 30 November, junior Ministers briefed the Committee on the need for accelerated passage for the Departments Bill. While the Bill set out the high-level framework for the nine-Department model, members heard that the reallocation of the statutory functions is provided for in the order that we debate today.

At that meeting, the junior Ministers committed themselves to work with the Committee on its consideration of the order. Although that commitment was welcomed, members were of a view that, due to time pressures, the opportunity to scrutinise the policy proposals in the order was likely to be limited. The Committee therefore wrote to the other Committees early in December to ask for their views on the proposed transfer of functions. We agreed to ask Committees for details of their consultation with, or representations from, stakeholders.

The Committee was briefed by OFMDFM officials in January on the restructuring of the new Executive Office. We wrote to relevant OFMDFM arm's-length bodies to seek their views on the proposed transfer of functions relating to OFMDFM. The Strategic Investment Board, the Planning Appeals Commission and the Victims and Survivors Service indicated agreement. The Children's Commissioner expressed concern that sponsorship of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People would fall to the Department of Education, which will have responsibility for services and policies that impact on children's lives. The commissioner believes that that may compromise the commission's independence.

The OFMDFM Committee received a briefing on the policy proposals in the order on 27 January 2016. Following the meeting, a draft of the order was issued to all Committees for information and consideration. On 10 February, the Committee noted the responses received from Committees. Most were content with the proposed transfers, although concerns were raised, for example, on organisational structures of new Departments, the relative weight that may be given to some functions in new Departments and the risk of a diminished voice. The OFMDFM Committee therefore recommended that a short, focussed review of the transfer of functions should be undertaken six months after the order comes into operation. That, we believe, will provide an opportunity to assess the efficiency of the new arrangements and identify adjustments that may be required.

The OFMDFM Committee formally considered the order on 2 March 2016 and, notwithstanding the points that we raised, agreed that it should be affirmed by the Assembly.

Speaking as an Alliance MLA, we as a party have supported reform of the Executive and Assembly, rationalisation of Departments, the reduction in the number of MLAs, the creation of an opposition, a voluntary coalition and an end to sectarian designation. As an Alliance MLA, therefore, I support the transfer of functions. However, I have concerns about the extent of the consultation that was possible in the time frame that we were given, and I support the Committee's call to ensure that there is a short focus review of the new arrangements.

As a party, we have concerns that the Employment Service is being placed in the Department for Communities rather than the Department for the Economy. We have ongoing concerns that civil law remains split between Health, Justice and Finance. The Alliance Party fought to ensure that "Environment" was given named recognition in the departmental title, and we hope that environmental protection continues to be a priority of that new Department.

I also have concerns about key strategies that will cross from one Department to another in the new mandate — for example, the important childcare strategy, given the increasing costs that many of our families face, community relations and social investment. I sincerely hope that the new Departments are able to transition and deliver on those arrangements as smoothly as possible.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I rise to support the Transfer of Functions Order. It is a good day that we are at this point. I know that this is a mechanism to deliver the statutory requirements for the transfer of functions to the new nine Departments. As someone who never really supported the set-up of 12 Departments, I believe that this is a good day. It will lead to better efficiencies and cohesion, but I plant a warning that the Ministers who are involved in the new Executive will be vital to the delivery of anything good and fresh that may come out of this move. I believe that we need to get away from the silo mindset. We need to be more cohesive and all going in one direction, which, as parties, we have failed to do collectively over the last term and beyond. I stand here with a hope that that will change as politics evolve and mature in this place. That can be only a good thing for the people whom we all serve in Northern Ireland.

I look forward to the day when, hopefully, we will see an opposition, which will lead not only to a more respectable opposition, not necessarily leaving it all to the Committees, but to a more streamlined government and Executive. That will further help to drive this country in one direction as opposed to five — now four — different directions. It is a very good day, and I understand the points that Chris Lyttle made.

It would be remiss of me not to echo Chris Lyttle's remarks regarding the atrocious terrorist attack that has taken the life of a brave prison officer. I echo everything that Mr Chris Lyttle said, and I hope that the House will stand up in the face of evil terrorism.

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

I entirely endorse and agree with the comments made by the last two Members on the terrible news that the prison officer who was attacked recently has died. There seemed to be some sense that the prison officer was in the process of recovery, and to hear this news in the last few minutes makes a terrible situation appear even worse. The sympathy of our party and, no doubt, everybody in the House goes to his family, his colleagues and the Prison Service generally. I concur with Mr Lyttle's comment that the single best response of every citizen is to share every single piece of information that they may have about this attack with the PSNI, and all should respond in that way.

Had there been an opportunity to amend the order before the House today, the SDLP would have sought to amend it because there appear to be tensions in the proposals on the transfer of functions. I do not think that this is the day to elaborate greatly on that matter, but I ask the junior Minister to respond to two points that represent the issues that the SDLP would have elaborated on had there been a better procedure in that regard.

The first point is that functions are being transferred from FM and dFM to the new Departments, but not every function is being transferred. On the face of it, that creates a tension. On the one hand, for example — unless I am very much in error, and I do not think that I am — responsibility for older people and children is being transferred to another Department, but the power to appoint the respective commissioners of the two statutory bodies is retained by FM and dFM. Here we have a situation where the function is transferred but the power of appointment is retained. The function is transferred in its totality, and the expertise, the staff, the specialism and the depth of knowledge will be in a different Department from the Department that appoints. Unless I am in error, that looks incongruous. Surely the power of appointment should fall to the Department that has exclusive responsibility for the function, but that is not to be the case. In this instance, the power of appointment is to be retained by FM and dFM. I ask the junior Minister to explain why that is the case. There have been occasions during the last two mandates when the issue of appointment by FM and dFM has become a matter of some tension. There were questions raised about a number of appointments of victims' commissioners over the last decade, and some would say that questions were raised about one or two appointments in other areas. Why retain the power of appointment when you transfer in totality all the other powers on those matters to another Department?

The second issue is that it is one thing to transfer function; it is another matter to retain function but transfer responsibility. The reason I make that point is that there is an event upstairs at the moment at which the fullest range of victims and survivors' groups are putting forward proposals on, for example, models of compensation for those subjected to institutional abuse or clerical abuse outside the institutions and those who had experiences in mother-and-baby homes. The people of great authority and very harsh experience who are in the Building are here in the context of FM and dFM retaining the functions in respect of victims and survivors, and yet, two or three weeks ago, it was decided in the Executive to transfer to the Department of Health the responsibility for scoping out what may or may not happen in respect of those who were subjected to clerical abuse and those who lived in mother-and-baby homes. I suggest that the Minister might want to explain why, when we are going through the elaborate exercise of reducing the number of Departments and reconfiguring their functions, the responsibility for further scoping out the issue of victims and survivors is devolved to the Department of Health while the function is retained by FM and dfM. It is another example, I suggest, of something that, on the face of it, looks incongruous. I might have wished to elaborate on other matters, but, given the limitations on what we can do on this motion and given other news, I leave it there.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

Like other Members who have spoken, I would like to convey to the family of the prison officer who has died following the heinous attack on 4 March my deepest sympathies. My thoughts are with them. We must do everything as a society to bring those responsible to justice and take them off the street. They are not representative of the wider community in Northern Ireland.

This is important legislation. The current system of Departments was established in 1998. No one claims that it was the perfect or optimum system, but it was of its time, and, for the most part, it has served us well. However, most things in life should be subject to scrutiny and monitoring with a view to updating and improving, and how we conduct the business of government should be no different.

Departments exist to deliver for the people they serve. What the people of Northern Ireland want is a system of government that delivers for them, their families and their communities. They are not obsessed with the number of Departments or what names they are given; they want to see results. A reduction in the number of Departments offers the prospect of more effective and efficient government. That is to be welcomed. It is essential that we foster and develop a culture of joined-up government and break down the silo mentality, which, as others have mentioned, has been the hallmark of too many ministerial decisions. So many issues cut across departmental responsibilities and require a cross-departmental response. In a political system where one party or perhaps a two-party coalition governs, that can present challenges when Ministers from the same party jealously guard departmental budgets and responsibilities; in a system such as ours, where multi-party coalitions have been the norm, cross-departmental working can be extremely difficult to achieve. That is something that all parties and Departments must strive to address. After all, we are all here to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. Their health, education and employment prospects are what all of us should be concerned with.

The revised Departments motion is not perfect. It represents the biggest challenge to administration here in 17 years. There are already concerns at some of the functions being transferred from one Department to another and doubts as to whether they are in the most appropriate location. For example, I am aware of concerns that unemployment is included in the Department for Communities and not the Department for the Economy. I am also aware that there are concerns over some of the functions retained by the renamed OFMDFM. The Ulster Unionist Party therefore wants to see a review mechanism built in to identify and address any unforeseen problems that may arise as the new departmental responsibilities and functions roll out. We should not be precious if problems are identified and changes need to be made.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Before I conclude, I will reiterate what other colleagues have said. I express my party's condolences and sympathies to the family of the prison officer who has died. I reiterate that the people who carried out that attack do not represent the community. If anyone has any information, it should be passed to the PSNI.

I am grateful to Members for their contributions. As I indicated at the outset and as has been said in the Assembly during debates on the Departments Act, reform of our institutional structures is a long-standing issue. Reducing the number of Departments has long been recognised as a key element of reform. With the passing of the Departments Act last month and the making of the transfer of functions order, we are close to realising that reform.

The Assembly endorsed the nine-Department structure for the future Executive when it passed the Departments Bill, and there is now broad consensus on the allocation of functions to Departments under the new model. Together, the Departments Act 2016 and the Departments (Transfer of Functions) Order 2016 create a framework for the most extensive reorganisation of departmental systems since 1999. The establishment of a streamlined nine-Department system in May will provide opportunities for improving the way in which we do business. It will enable productive synergy to be achieved from the outset of the mandate.

I will now take the time to respond to some of the issues that Members brought up. The Deputy Chair, Mr Chris Lyttle, mentioned the consultation with the Committee. We would have preferred to have spent a longer period on it, but we did not have a lot of time in which to bring it forward.

Mr Attwood mentioned that some appointments functions will remain in OFMDFM in its new form. Those functions have been retained so as to maintain a sense of independence. You will be aware that OFMDFM is a joint office, in which the First Minister and the deputy First Minister act in a joint capacity. That helps ensure that important and high-profile offices have the support of the broader community. That is one of the reasons that those functions will remain there.

He also mentioned victims and survivors of historical institutional abuse. I hosted today's event on redress in my capacity as a party MLA. One of the reasons that the scoping papers on clerical abuse and on mother and baby homes have been anchored in the Department of Health is because the Safeguarding Board is part of that Department. The board has the necessary skills and expertise and is able to take a more sensitive approach when looking at such issues.

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

Will the junior Minister give way?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Yes.

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

The junior Minister said that, when it came to appointments, it was necessary for some public appointments to have cross-community support. If that is the logic that she is deploying, I suggest that those who believe in that argument should bring proposals forward so as to do the exact same for all appointments made by the Justice Minister. The House appoints the Justice Minister on the basis of what? Cross-community support. If you believe that that office requires cross-community support, given the importance of so many of the persons nominated by the Justice Minister's powers — to the Probation Board, the Policing Board and the Judicial Appointments Commission — why is there not a need for cross-community support for those very sensitive matters? If you believe that there is a need for cross-community support for some matters, why do you not apply that logic and have OFMDFM appoint people to those sorts of posts? If that is the logic of your assertion, why do you not follow that logic through and apply it in other places? If you do not apply it in other places, why do you reserve that power to OFMDFM?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Member will be well aware of the issues around the appointment of the Justice Minister. I am not here to go into all that. There have, however, been examples of splits having taken place between the appointment and sponsorship roles for the Equality Commission, the Police Ombudsman and other offices.

Finally, I thank Members for their contributions to the debate and for the questions and issues that they raised. A leaner, more joined-up Administration, with improved cohesion in and between Departments is in all our interests and will be this Assembly's legacy to the next mandate.

Assembly affirmation of the Departments (Transfer of Functions) Order is a necessary part of the process. I therefore ask the Assembly to approve the motion.

Notice taken that 10 Members were not present. House counted, and, there being fewer than 10 Members present, the Deputy Speaker ordered the Division Bells to be rung. Upon 10 Members being present —

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That the Departments (Transfer of Functions) Order (Northern Ireland) 2016 be affirmed.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I beg to move

That the Ministerial Offices (Number and Functions) Determination 2016 be approved.

This motion is the final statutory process that the Assembly needs to take to achieve a reduction in the number of Departments and a smaller Executive after the May election. The determination is a formal document required under section 17 of the NI Act 1998. The First Minister and the deputy First Minister must make a new determination when an Act of the Assembly establishes a new Department or dissolves an existing one. As the Assembly has recently passed the Departments Act 2016, which will dissolve three existing Departments, a fresh determination will be needed.

The determination provides the basis on which the departmental Ministers will be appointed at the start of the next mandate under the d'Hondt system for most Ministers and by Assembly vote for the Minister of Justice. The determination was signed by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister on 1 March, and we now seek the Assembly's approval with cross-community support. It sets out the titles of the eight future departmental Ministers and their functions in the Departments that they will take charge of. The First Minister and the deputy First Minister and the future Executive Office are not listed because they are provided for separately in primary legislation. The same formula has been used in the two previous determinations in 1999, and in 2010 when the Department of Justice was established.

This does not change the status of existing departmental Ministers for the time being. They will remain in post until election day on 5 May, in line with section 16A of the NI Act. The determination, if approved today, will not take effect until the first meeting of the next Assembly in the week following the election on 5 May. The Departments Act 2016 and the Departments (Transfer of Functions) Order 2016 will have come into effect over the intervening weekend, giving legal authority to the names of the future Departments and establishing their statutory functions.

That approach will align with the arrangements in the Westminster Bill, which extends the time available for agreeing the Programme for Government in advance of the appointment of Ministers. There was a commitment in the Stormont House Agreement to extend the time available for that negotiation from seven to 14 days. The Westminster Bill will disapply the requirement in Standing Orders for d'Hondt to be run within seven days of a determination coming into effect but only if it takes effect during the period starting with the first meeting of the new Assembly. The commencement provision in the determination therefore gives greater flexibility to party leaders to negotiate the next Programme for Government before the appointment of Ministers. The determination is a significant document that will play an important role in the creation of future, more compact Executives. Its importance is acknowledged by the requirement for cross-community support.

The Assembly already passed the Departments Act, which establishes that future nine-Department system. It just affirmed the Departments (Transfer of Functions) Order, which reallocates statutory responsibilities between Departments, and it can now put the final piece in place by approving the determination, which will give titles to future Ministers and assign them departmental responsibilities. That will complete the statutory requirement to fulfil the commitment in the Stormont House Agreement that was reaffirmed in the Fresh Start Agreement — the commitment to a reduction in the number of Departments to nine in time for the 2016 Assembly election.

Debates on the Departments Act showed that there is general support for a more streamlined departmental system and a smaller Executive. We look forward to seeing that in operation in the next mandate. The approval of the determination will be an important step towards that goal. I commend the motion to the Assembly and urge that the determination be approved with the necessary cross-community support.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I will speak very briefly on behalf of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister on the Ministerial Offices (Number and Functions) Determination 2016. As the junior Minister outlined, the determination before us today will form the basis for filling ministerial offices in the next Assembly mandate. It reflects the ministerial positions following the restructuring of the Northern Ireland Departments to a nine-Department model. The Committee considered the determination at its meeting on 9 March and was content for it to be approved by the Assembly.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Before I address the determination, I add my voice to those who have already spoken to condemn what happened to the prison officer who was attacked on 4 March and who has subsequently died. We obviously all condemn what happened. It is good that that condemnation has taken place, because it did not always take place. It is important to remember that he was an individual with a family and that he will leave behind those who will miss him and who have loved him. It is a tragedy for them, and it is obviously right that, as an Assembly, we send our prayers and best wishes to his family and friends at this time and stand together and say that we utterly condemn what has happened, we find it utterly appalling and there was never any justification for taking the life of someone who was serving in that way. There is no justification for it taking place now, and there never will be any justification. Although other Members took the opportunity to express those sentiments, I think it is right that we all stand together and say it with one voice.

Moving on to what is before us, like Mr Lyttle, I will be brief. The Fresh Start Agreement obviously has the support of my party. There are a number of things within it that we want to see take place, and legislation is required for that to happen. We are getting towards the end of the process now, and it will require the determination to go through so that departmental responsibilities are properly allocated, Departments are created and the appropriate titles are given. The position of my party on the issue has been made very clear. All that is left to say is that we will support the determination.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

This is a fairly modest piece of legislation before us today in size, but not in importance. It sets out the new ministerial offices and Departments due to come into effect in the new mandate. We support the creation of a more streamlined system of government at Stormont and wish to see services delivered in a more effective and efficient manner. A reduction in the number of Departments should help to achieve that. It is my opinion that the people we seek to serve are not obsessed with the number of Departments or what names they are given; they want to see results on the ground. That is what we should turn our attention to as we move into the new mandate.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I mentioned earlier that the determination is a formal document, but its approval is more than a mere formality. Without this determination coming into effect at the appropriate time, the Ministers of the future Executive will not have their legal titles and their responsibilities for their Departments will not be clearly set out. It is an important document constitutionally. That is why it requires cross-community support to be validly approved by the Assembly. It is the final step that this Assembly needs to take to prepare for the restructuring of the Executive Departments in May. The First Minister and deputy First Minister have made the appointed day order, which will dissolve three Departments and rename seven others on 8 May, shortly after the election. The transfer of functions order will come into force at the same time, reallocating the functions of Departments. This determination will then take effect at the first meeting of the new Assembly later that week, when Ministers will be appointed to a new Executive in the early weeks of the Assembly and will take responsibility for a streamlined nine-Department Administration with an agenda for action in an agreed Programme for Government.

We are coming to the end of a process that started with the last Programme for Government. It was the subject of a report by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. It became a firm commitment in the Stormont House Agreement and was reaffirmed, with challenging deadlines, in the 'Fresh Start' document. This Assembly has met the deadlines. Thanks are due to the Assembly and its Committees, particularly the OFMDFM Committee, for the time and effort that it has invested in the process since last November. Beyond the Assembly, extensive preparatory work has been undertaken in Departments to make ready for restructuring. Everything suggests that the reform will be accomplished in May, with minimal disruption to public services and longer-term gains in efficiency. I urge the Assembly to endorse the motion and give its approval to the determination with the necessary cross-community support.

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

I remind Members that cross-community support is needed for this motion.

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

That the Ministerial Offices (Number and Functions) Determination 2016 be approved.

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

As there are no dissenting voices, the motion is duly passed.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Belfast South)

I beg to move

That this Assembly agrees that the Westminster Parliament should consider the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill, as introduced in the House of Commons on 10 February 2016, dealing with the power in clause 1(4) of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, acting jointly, to nominate two members of the Independent Reporting Commission; and the establishment of new measures relating to the financial responsibility of the Assembly contained in clause 9.

The Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 10 February. It gives effect to a number of commitments contained in 'A Fresh Start: The Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan'. It has now passed all its stages in the Commons with only minor amendment and awaits passage through the Lords. Subject to parliamentary approval, it is expected to obtain Royal Assent before the Assembly election on 5 May. I am conscious that representatives of the parties that take their seats in Westminster have already had the opportunity to debate and seek to influence the Bill overall, although most of the issues raised there relate to excepted matters, which are the Secretary of State's responsibility and are therefore outside the terms of this motion.

The majority of the provisions in the Bill deal with matters that are excepted or reserved to the Westminster Parliament and, therefore, do not require an LCM. There are, however, two provisions that do require an LCM as they place new responsibilities on Northern Ireland Ministers. In the interests of efficiency, it was considered sensible for these provisions to be included in the Westminster Bill rather than be detached and progressed, perhaps to a different timescale, through Assembly legislation.

The first is the power for the First Minister and deputy First Minister, acting jointly, to nominate two of the four members of the Independent Reporting Commission. The commission will be established and sponsored by the United Kingdom and Irish Governments and will have the overarching objective of promoting progress towards ending paramilitary activity connected with Northern Ireland. Clause 1(4) of the Bill enables the First Minister and deputy First Minister, jointly, to nominate two of the four commissioners, with the other two to be nominated separately by the United Kingdom Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

The second set of provisions requiring an LCM concerns the establishment of new measures relating to the financial responsibility of the Assembly and is contained in clause 9. These provisions will introduce greater transparency into the budgetary process by providing for the Minister of Finance and Personnel to lay a statement before the Assembly at least 14 days in advance of laying a draft Budget. The statement will specify the amount of UK funding for the financial year, as notified by the Secretary of State. A further statement will be required to be laid alongside the draft Budget showing that the amount of United Kingdom funding required will not exceed the amount available and set out in the first statement. Where the amount of UK funding is revised, the Minister must lay a further statement, within four months of notification, showing the revisions to expenditure proposals where changes are required as a result of the notification. These proposals must not exceed the revised amount of United Kingdom funding.

The First Minister and deputy First Minister laid a legislative consent memorandum before the Assembly on 12 February. This was referred to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. I wish to record the appreciation of the First Minister and deputy First Minister for the work of the Committee, in consultation with the Committees for Justice and Finance and Personnel, on this memorandum and for its report confirming support for the legislative consent motion.

While it is preferable for the Assembly itself to legislate on devolved matters, there are occasions when it makes sense to utilise a Westminster Bill rather than initiate a parallel process; such as now, for example, when the nomination provisions that form part of the motion would have been detached from their overall context. I commend the motion to the House.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I rise to speak on behalf of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister on the Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill legislative consent motion. I thank the junior Minister for her opening remarks.

The Committee considered the legislative consent memorandum on 17 February and noted that the Assembly's consent would be required in respect of two provisions. As the junior Minister has outlined, the first provision, in clause 1(4), is with regard to the power for the First Minister and deputy First Minister, acting jointly, to nominate two members of the Independent Reporting Commission. The second provision requiring consent is with regard to the establishment of new measures relating to the financial responsibility of the Assembly in clause 9.

Given that these provisions are relevant to the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department of Justice, officials from those Departments joined with an official from OFMDFM to brief the Committee on the LCM on 17 February. The Committee also sought the views of the Committee for Finance and Personnel and the Committee for Justice. During the briefing, the Committee heard that the provision relating to the nominations of two members of the Independent Reporting Commission is part of a wider set of provisions relating to an excepted matter. Rather than dealing with this provision separately, UK legislation is being utilised as a measure of efficiency and practicality. The DOJ official confirmed that that Department had no objection to the provision but added that consultation with the Minister of Justice was expected on this matter.

In its response to the Committee, the Committee for Justice advised that it had also consulted with the Department of Justice. The Department’s response, which was forwarded to the OFMDFM Committee, reiterated the view that, whilst the Minister of Justice accepts that the provision in clause 1(4) is consistent with the Fresh Start Agreement, he would expect to be consulted by the First Minister and deputy First Minister on nominations.

As for the provision relating to the financial responsibility of the Assembly, the Committee heard that the LCM gives effect to a commitment in the Fresh Start Agreement. That states that the UK Government will legislate, with Assembly consent, to ensure that the Assembly cannot consider spending plans that exceed the block grant allocated by the Treasury or the Northern Ireland Executive’s borrowing limits when planned spending relies on those funding sources. The DFP official advised the Committee that that provision will not change the application of financial practice, because Northern Ireland is already required to live within the Treasury control totals. It will, however, formalise the process, as agreed in the Fresh Start Agreement.

The Committee for Finance and Personnel also sought the views of DFP on that provision. The response, which was copied to the Committee, advises that, as well as formalising existing processes, it is hoped that the LCM will provide for improved transparency in respect of funding sources, spending controls and assumptions underpinning the Budget position.

The Committee considered those views and its position on the LCM at its meeting on 2 March. The Committee recognised that, should the provisions in the Bill not be extended to Northern Ireland, agreed aspects of the Fresh Start Agreement may not be implemented at this stage. The Committee also accepted that the inclusion of the provisions in UK legislation is a practical approach.

During the discussions, some Members indicated the intention of their respective parties to table amendments to the Bill at Westminster. Their support for the Committee's position on the legislative consent motion was, therefore, without prejudice.

With those positions on the record, the Committee agreed, at its meeting on 2 March 2016, to support the legislative consent motion to extend certain provisions of the Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill to Northern Ireland.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

As the Minister and the Deputy Chair made clear, we have the legislative consent motion before us. It has two provisions regarding the Independent Reporting Commission and clause 9 of the Northern Ireland (Stormont House Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill. Those provisions are sensible, and the Deputy Chair outlined the Committee's scrutiny role. At this stage, that is the correct route for us to go down to ensure that the provisions in the Fresh Start Agreement can become reality.

As was mentioned, it is important that we have financial controls in place. Although the LCM will not change the arrangements for the way the Assembly spends its money and how much it spends, it will formalise them, which is good. It is good to show that we take our finance responsibilities seriously.

My party will, obviously, support these, as there are important determinations to be made in relation to the Fresh Start Agreement, which has our full support.

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

This is the last occasion on which I will speak in the Chamber in this mandate. It is yet to be determined whether I will have any speaking rights in the next mandate, but I take this moment to speak about you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Over your long years of service, you have been relentless in pursuing the policies and politics that you believe in. You brought colour to the SDLP Assembly group and outside it, and you have been a relentless servant of Irish democracy. As your political career ends, although your political contribution will not end, I put on the record, on behalf of me, my party and, I am sure, everybody in the Chamber, how much your work has been appreciated here and outside of here, both in dark days and in better days.

If I have one regret, it is that, as you will recall, we once hatched a plot to ensure that you were made Speaker, but, when the opportunity presented itself, your service and your status as one of the elders of the House were not fully recognised. Save that, your career has been a monumental contribution to Irish politics and to this part of the island that you love.

I turn, then, to the LCM. Last week, the SDLP took the opportunity to table about a dozen amendments to the Bill proceeding through Westminster. In our view, they would have enhanced what was proposed at Westminster. There are two or three matters that I want to press the junior Minister on, two of which arise immediately from the content of the LCM and one that arises from the broader content of the legislation, which has now been passed by the House of Commons and is on its way to the House of Lords.

Without prejudice to our view on 'A Fresh Start', one of the areas on which some progress was made — the junior Minister will recall this — was the commitments entered into, on paper at least, on criminal and paramilitary activity. The junior Minister will recall that, of the dozen papers that the SDLP contributed to the autumn talks process last year, quite a number dealt with the legacy issue, but two dealt with criminality and paramilitarism. One was on a whole-community approach to criminality and paramilitarism, and the other was on a whole-enforcement approach to paramilitary and criminal activity. Unlike some others, we shared those documents with all parties in an effort to upscale the outcome of the negotiations. In some ways, you can see that contribution in the new commitments entered into in the Westminster legislation on criminality and paramilitarism.

The amendment that the SDLP tabled at Westminster last week proposed that two members of the IRC — the Independent Reporting Commission — be appointed by the Northern Ireland Justice Minister following consultation with the First Ministers and subject to the approval of the Executive Committee, instead of being jointly appointed by FM and dFM, as the LCM proposes. My question for the junior Minister is this: given that better work was done in Stormont last autumn on paramilitarism and criminality, would ours not have been the better model? Given that the IRC will monitor what goes on in the community and given that what goes on in the community is of concern to all of us, would it not have been better if the LCM had had that process, with the buy-in of all of the Executive to the nominations to the IRC? It is a variation, if you like, on a theme raised in a previous debate: why are FM and dFM taking unto themselves the appointment of chairs or chief executives of certain public bodies under the transfer of functions order? Would it not have been better to source appointments to the IRC in a process requiring the approval of all parties that choose to go into the Executive Committee on the far side of the election on 5 May rather than just the First Ministers? I am not making the point in that regard that, I have no doubt, will be made before the debate is over, unless I misread the situation, about how anybody with any background should have the authority to appoint to an IRC. That is not the point that I am making, although it may be a point that is made after I sit down. I make the point that, if the threat of paramilitarism and criminality is one that is shared by all parties and all citizens, it should have been a process of a shared outcome when it came to the appointment of the IRC.

The second point that I want to make to the junior Minister is about the budgetary processes. I have to say that, when questions were put to the Minister of Finance during the Final Stage of the Budget Bill a couple of weeks ago in relation to the budgetary process that arises from 'A Fresh Start', I did not get much satisfaction in terms of answers in respect of why this was being required and what the range and potential of these provisions were in respect of the budgetary processes. Having said that, we welcome the provisions that are now in the legislation in Westminster, but we argued that we should go further. We asked, "What is the real thinking behind all of this?". We argued that we should go further in terms of budgetary processes beyond the welcome addition of the statements that are to be laid in the House in respect of the block grant.

In the amendment that we tabled at Westminster last week, we argued for the integration of a lot more rigour into the new budgetary clause in order to have a lot more accountability and transparency. I do not intend to read into the record the amendment, which runs to a full page. It would have interrogated what is now in the Bill in Westminster so that this House would have a lot more knowledge, oversight, accountability and input into the budgetary processes. My colleagues in London got some sense, in respect of some of the arguments that the SDLP MPs made on our amendments, that there might have been some margin of sympathy — even from DUP MPs who, as you know, sit behind the SDLP MPs. I suggest to the junior Minister, given that that amendment was rejected and given its extensive scale — no doubt, people will see the fingerprints of Mark Durkan MP all over it — that she consider it and have a discussion with whoever is Minister of Finance after the election in order to scale up the operation of that amendment in terms of the Budget provisions going forward in the future. Both issues are very much sourced in the LCM today.

I want to raise the three following points very briefly. First, there is the need to record what the new Pledge of Office means and what the new pledge by Members of the Assembly will mean, once the new mandate is confirmed. It is no coincidence that in the Pledge of Office that is now amended, the first paragraph of that amendment says that Ministers shall:

"support the rule of law unequivocally in word and deed and to support all efforts to uphold it".

Those words are definitive and absolute:

"support the rule of law unequivocally in word and deed and to support all efforts to uphold it".

The obligation, further to that amended Pledge of Office, has three pillars: "unequivocally", "word and deed" and "all efforts".

Although I may be straying slightly beyond the LCM, let us be very clear about what those words mean. There have been events on this island in very recent history — in recent weeks — when issues about unequivocal support for the rule of law in word and deed, and all efforts to uphold it, have once again become problematic. That is before the ink on the page of the Westminster Bill is even dry.

A second point arises from that, and I urge the House to look at it. The SDLP amendments — maybe the SDLP comes up with this more often than others — produced a model to create a process around the Pledge of Office. Rather than have words on a piece of paper that people can raise their hands to and thereafter be problematic about, the SDLP proposed a model whereby the Pledge of Office and the commitment of Members could be monitored.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will in a second. The SDLP model was to create the role of a pledge adjudicator, appointed by the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints and involving our Lord Chief Justice. If an issue arose with the conduct of a Minister or a Member, there would then be a process whereby that could be interrogated, rather than left for others to determine.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member is making points about the Pledge of Office. He may think that they are valid points, but we are talking about an LCM today. What has the Pledge of Office got to do with what is in front of us?

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

Maybe the Member was not here for my first two points, which were very much sourced in the LCM. However, there is a piece of legislation at Westminster that has relevance to this Chamber every day hereafter until the law might be changed. You may not want to consider those matters, but, if we do not, they will come crashing in on us sooner or later.

My final point is that the SDLP proposed building into the Westminster legislation obligations not just on councillors but on others who sit on public bodies. Those obligations would relate to the Nolan principles and would upscale and upgrade the standards around public office at a time when we know from the bitter experience of recent weeks and days that questions still remain unresolved about standards in public office.

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

Question Time is scheduled to begin at 2.00 pm. I ask Members to take their ease until then. After Question Time, we will return to the debate on the LCM, and the next Member called to speak will be Mr Andy Allen.

The debate stood suspended.

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

Oral Answers to Questions — Regional Development

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I advise Members that questions 3, 6, 9, 10 and 13 have been withdrawn.

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

1. Ms Hanna asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline the most recent assessment of journey times on the Ormeau Road and Ravenhill Road, Belfast. (AQO 9867/11-16)

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

The Ormeau Road is one of the city’s busiest radial routes. Care must be taken in assessing such data, as traffic conditions can vary due to numerous and varied vehicle and pedestrian interactions along the route. The latest journey-time information my Department has for the Ormeau Road is from 2013. The data relates to journey times for cars, vans and HGVs. For a road stretch between the Ravenhill Road roundabout and Annadale Embankment, the average speed was approximately 3·7 mph, and between Annadale Embankment and Cromac Square, in the city, the average speed was approximately 7·3 mph. That information is for the morning peak period of 7.30 am to 9.15 am. An assessment indicates a marginal decrease in journey times on both sections from 2011 information. However, from 10.30 am to 3.30 pm, the average speed from Ravenhill Road roundabout to Annadale Embankment was approximately 16·2 mph, and from Annadale Embankment to the city was 9·9 mph.

As a comparison, at peak times, bus journey times have been available through the BusTrak system since 2007. From that time up to 2014, the bus speeds on the Saintfield Road/Ormeau Road corridor have remained constant at between 5·9 mph and 6·8 mph. That includes the time taken to stop and pick up and set down passengers. Data for bicycle journeys on the Ormeau Road corridor are not routinely collected. A small number of timed journeys from Cairnshill Park and Ride to Belfast city centre via the Ormeau Road — that is about 3·8 miles — have indicated a typical off-peak journey time of 20 to 25 minutes. There is no journey-time information available for the Ravenhill Road.

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

I thank the Minister for that very comprehensive answer. She will be aware that this is a pressing issue, not just for those of us who live in south Belfast and use those roads every day, but as she says, it is a wider commuter corridor including from the Saintfield Road. I appreciate the efforts by the Department, including the work on bus and cycle transport. Ultimately, we need to get more cars off the road to reduce congestion, but I think that those speeds — I believe that, in 2013, it was the slowest road in Belfast, and I do not imagine that it has improved greatly for drivers —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Can we have a question, please?

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

Can the Minister advise when a new assessment will be given and what further actions might be taken to facilitate workers in south Belfast and further afield who are trying to get to work in the city centre?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for her question, and I take on board what she has said. I have spoken to officials about this, having looked at the responses received, and I have asked them to update the data, with bus lanes included in that and the enforcement associated with it. We are trying to encourage people to use public transport, and I have very good information about Cairnshill Park and Ride, which is used by an average of 500 vehicles a day. There has also been somewhere in the region of a 12% increase in the number of passengers using buses. We also want to encourage the safe use of cycles on that route. The Member representing the area will be cognisant of the fact that there are somewhere in the region of 4,000 pupils enrolled in schools within that small area. There are seven schools with very high enrolment in that particular area, which adds to the congestion, so it is also about encouraging schools to use active travel methods.

There are things that can be used to encourage people out of their cars and on to public transport, but it is also about making the environment much safer for them to do so.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I seek the assurances of the Minister for Regional Development that the Lagan footbridge and cycle bridge, which will connect the Ormeau Road and Ravenhill Road areas of south and east Belfast, remains part of the Department's plans, despite unionist councillors' opposition to the planning permission that was granted by Belfast City Council for that exciting project.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. He rightly says that planning permission was granted in February for the footbridge. The bridge orders have also been made for that facility. Obviously, we are in a situation where budgets are being developed. The project has a potential cost of between £8 million and £9 million, so it is very much subject to funding being made available. While I recognise that it would be of benefit to cyclists and walkers and would perhaps aid in the reduction of congestion as we move forward, the residents also have to be taken into consideration. Further conversations will have to be had with them, and, obviously, any future Minister would need to do so before making a final decision on the facility.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. With the indulgence of the Deputy Speaker on your last Question Time, Minister, I congratulate you on your short but successful tenure. We got some things over the line in south Belfast.

Given the two-hour traffic jam that is the story of south Belfast every morning, is the solution not to take the Belfast rapid transit (BRT), which will be a great success in east and west, and — whoever is Minister — expand it into the south of the city, perhaps right from the city centre to Carryduff?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his kind comments. I am fully committed to Belfast rapid transit and have been. It is important that we look at expanding it not only to the south of the city but to the north. Work will commence on an assessment of that, and the route should be identified. Obviously, it is looking at an area where there is a lot of traffic, so that it can ease that congestion, and where there will be people who will use it. A natural route would be from Cairnshill down the Ormeau Road. I would be very much in favour of that as a proposition. There is an outline timetable for that, but it is, obviously, provisional at this stage. They are looking to prepare an options assessment in 2017-18, to prepare the business case in 2018-19, to have a detailed design and implementation in 2019-2020 and for it to be operational in 2022. Obviously, that is all very provisional, but I am hopeful that that will be a positive outcome for that area and will ease the congestion described by the Member.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

2. Mr Swann asked the Minister for Regional Development for an update on the safety enhancements on the A26 Lisnevenagh Road. (AQO 9868/11-16)

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I can report that the safety review of the A26 Lisnevenagh Road is now complete. It concludes that, whilst there is not an unusually high incidence of collisions along that route, given the volume of traffic using the road, the number of fatal collisions is a cause for concern. Transport NI has identified three sites that warranted further investigation and where collision remedial measures can be introduced to influence driver behaviour and reduce the risk of collisions. The sites that have been singled out for further investigation are the Barnish Road/Creevery Road junction; Woodgreen Road and Maine Road junction; and Cromkill Road junction.

Police investigations of the fatal collisions are ongoing. However, I am aware that there is great interest in the matter from a number of local MLAs. I intend to have meetings with local representatives at which I can detail the proposed measures. Transport NI officials intend to make a joint presentation with the PSNI to Mid and East Antrim Borough Council to inform members of the council of the findings of the report and to seek their support for the proposed collision remedial actions.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer and for the invite to the information session that will be held, I think, next Monday in Ballymena.

With regard to those three sites specifically, Minister, can you give any more detail at this stage of whether you are undertaking purely remedial exercises or whether there will be substantial investment to make those junctions safe for all road users? I acknowledge that you said that there was not an unusually high number of collisions, but I think that the number of fatalities on that road is something that concerns all the local elected representatives. Since I last raised the matter with you in topical questions, we have seen the unfortunate death of Karla Cameron at the Woodgreen junction.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. Obviously, I acknowledge the comments that he has made. With regard to each of those areas, they are very site-specific in relation to the recommendations that will be put to members. That will include the provision and review of street lighting and legislative changes to ban right-turning movements on at least two of those roads. Enhanced signage and road markings will also be included in that. Obviously, that will become clearer when we have the conversation.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answers to date and for taking up my invitation to come down on site to the Woodgreen junction to see for herself the risks that drivers have to take daily, sometimes more than once.

The Minister mentioned three specific sites. I agree with her that they are indeed very dangerous crossings, but I want to say to the Minister that I believe that there could well be a fourth crossing that is potentially very dangerous, which is the Valley Road/Shankbridge junction —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Can we have a question?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

— that is very close to Carnaghts Primary School. I have met the principal, Mr Ian Henderson, who has been campaigning for many years for road improvements. Will the Minister consider placing a fourth junction into the system?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. The safety review considered all junctions along the route, with particular attention being paid to locations where at least four collisions had occurred in the last three years. Records show that there has been one collision at the Valley Road junction in the last three years. That collision occurred on 16 November 2014. That junction currently has junction warning signs, map-type advance direction signs and advance warning signs of the school on both approaches to the junction on the A26. The junction will benefit from the recommendation in the report that a route treatment be completed to refresh and replace the signs and lines to ensure consistency of information to drivers.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Minister speaks about collision remedial measures, which sounds very good, but the only thing that she then spoke about was extra street lighting, extra road markings and a ban on right turns at a couple of junctions. Surely, Minister, it will take much more structural change than that to bring safety to those deathtrap junctions, particularly at Woodgreen. I trust that the Minister is prepared to do more than what has been suggested.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I appreciate the Member's comments. I will meet Mr Allister at that junction on Monday morning in advance of the meeting with the other MLAs. At the meeting, it will actually be useful for all of us to sit around the table with the engineers, look at the proposals and talk about the available options for each junction. As I said, each junction is different and very site-specific, and there will be recommendations for each of them. The opportunity to have those conversations will be on Monday. Out of that, we can pursue any further suggestions or changes that others may feel are appropriate.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

4. Mr Lunn asked the Minister for Regional Development for an update on the proposals for a link road between the Knockmore area of Lisburn and junction 8 of the M1. (AQO 9870/11-16)

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

In the Belfast metropolitan transport plan 2015, the Knockmore to Sprucefield link road, known as the M1/Knockmore Link, has been identified as a developer-led proposal. This means that it is the responsibility of the developers of adjacent land to deliver the road scheme as part of their development. As a consultee to Planning Service, my Department has in the past engaged in pre-application discussions with a potential developer.

However, as delivery of the link road is dependent on future development of west Lisburn by other parties, it is not possible for me to provide an accurate timescale at this time.

On 28 January 2016, I met Dr Donaldson and other members of Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council to discuss the road scheme proposal. I subsequently wrote to Dr Donaldson on 2 February 2016 to confirm that my Department will undertake a preliminary traffic assessment of what the traffic impacts would be on the surrounding road network by the provision of the M1 Knockmore link. It is envisaged that the results should provide objective evidence for further discussion between Transport NI and Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council officers. The results of the traffic assessment should be available by the end of March 2016, after which I will write again to Dr Donaldson about the outcome.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for her answer. After all the razzmatazz of the photographs in the 'Ulster Star' and so on, it does not sound as if the project is anywhere near the point where it might be put on the list to go ahead. You said that the funding model is developer-led. Is the developer of the surrounding land supposed to pay for the entire cost of the road, or is there input from other sources?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. At present, no funding has been identified in our current budget for the provision of the Knockmore link. As I said, it has a developer-led designation. I met the council, along with others, including those from SIB who have an interest, and the proposal that was put to the Department at that time was a partnership model, which would include all three partners. Hence I asked my officials to conduct a survey to see whether or not it could be regarded as a strategic road. I found that to be a productive meeting, and I was encouraged by the proposal that was put to us by Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council. I believe that, moving forward, my Department needs to look at alternative means of funding. That may include partnerships with local councils and others in order to deliver on key roads.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As somebody who travels the M1 daily, I know that there is activity taking place on the Maze/Long Kesh site. There was a proposed junction to go from the M1 into the site. Is that still a commitment of the Department, or has it been scrapped?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I am aware of proposals for the provision of direct access to the site from the M1 and from Sprucefield. The provision of the infrastructure is really a matter for OFMDFM and the Maze Long Kesh (MLK) Development Corporation to fund and deliver it. As a consultee to the development, Transport NI has met key stakeholders, including the director of the MLK Development Corporation, just to provide advice on the site. My officials will be available to give advice on road design aspects of any proposal that comes forward. I understand that a series of transport management meetings organised by the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society took place again in advance of the 2015 Balmoral Show, which was held at the Maze site in May 2015. That advised of temporary signing and general traffic management arrangements in order to minimise the likely traffic disruption during the event.

As part of the Halftown Road safety improvements, there has been work carried out. A 970-metre long and 3-metre wide footway/cycleway has been constructed along the frontage of the MLK site at Halftown Road. There is a piece of work around exploring the potential to extend the Northern Ireland cycle network to the site, and footway/cycleway work has commenced along the frontage of the site.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

5. Mrs Cameron asked the Minister for Regional Development, in light of anticipated growth in passenger numbers and airline routes, whether she plans to dual the section of the A57 from the M2 to Belfast International Airport. (AQO 9871/11-16)

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I recognise the importance of transport links to our ports and airports. The regional development strategy 2035 identifies Belfast International Airport, along with George Best Belfast City Airport and the airport in Londonderry, as strategically important transport interchanges. The implementation of my Department's strategic road improvement programme has enhanced regional access to Belfast International Airport. Current dual carriageway improvement works to the A26 and recent announcements regarding the A6 flagship project will reinforce that.

In 2014, Transport NI commissioned a feasibility study to identify potential options to improve strategic links between the M1 and M2/M22 and Belfast International Airport. A number of potential route corridors were examined, several of which will be taken forward to the next stage for further study. No commitment on funding can be given at this time. The next review of the investment strategy for Northern Ireland may, however, provide an opportunity for my Department to look at the prioritisation of new schemes. At that time, connections to Belfast International Airport can be considered along with other existing and proposed schemes elsewhere in Northern Ireland.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the good job that she has done in her term of office. Given that this is her last Question Time, I wish her all the best. I thank the Minister for her answer. Will she advise what the findings of the feasibility study were and what discussions her Department has had with Belfast International Airport as a result of those findings?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for her question. The study identified a number of potential route corridors, including improvements to the A26 and A57. The next stage will be to refine the options with a view to undertaking a more detailed options appraisal. As with everything, progress will, obviously, be subject to funding. My officials regularly meet officials from Belfast International Airport and the other two airports. Those meetings mostly concern airport noise and control-of-land issues, but transport-related issues come up and are explored. In the coming months, my officials will meet members of the Belfast International Airport consultative forum to discuss a number of transport-related issues, including access to the airport, parking and traffic management matters. Previous engagement by the Department with Belfast International Airport staff included talks with Mr John Doran, the then managing director, and that resulted in Transport NI commissioning the feasibility study to examine the links between the M1 and M2/M22 with Belfast International Airport.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. First, I commend the Minister on her time in office. Does the Minister agree that an extension of the railway system to Belfast International Airport would be not only a boost to the long-term sustainability of the airport but a great attraction for service users?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. When you travel to the Continent, get off at the airport and see excellent rail services, you absolutely want that for home. I recognise the strategic importance of our airports and of their having good links to our major towns and cities. However, we have to set that in a context of priorities for investment, particularly given the challenges as we move forward. You also need to understand that, within any recommendations for improvements, the establishment of a rail link to Belfast International Airport would require in the region of 10 million passengers, and the latest figures for 2014 indicate that there were just over four million passengers. I recommend to the Member the very good bus link service from the airport to the city centre. I understand that it operates every 10 minutes at peak flight times and at a minimum of every 30 minutes at all other times.

Adrian Cochrane-Watson (UUP, South Antrim)

I also commend the Minister for her work since taking over the role. In discussions with representatives of Belfast International, they say to me that the biggest inhibitor to growth is not transport links but air passenger duty. Have there been any discussions between you and ministerial colleagues on APD?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. Unfortunately, that is outside the remit of my Department, but I am happy to have a conversation with colleagues and pass that information to him.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

7. Mr Ross asked the Minister for Regional Development for an update on the York Street interchange project. (AQO 9873/11-16)

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

A public inquiry into the York Street interchange project was held in November 2015. In due course, my Department will publish a departmental statement setting out its response to the recommendations in the inspectors' report and make the report available for inspection. My Department has commenced the procurement process and intends to have a design-and-build contractor on board this summer to help to fully develop the scheme in order to be in a position to commence construction towards the end of 2017.

The development and construction of the scheme to the programme that I outlined is very dependent on the availability of finance. A full economic business case will have to be approved by the Department of Finance and Personnel before any commitments can be given to start construction.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I, too, congratulate the Minister on her term of office, not least because everybody else has, and I would not want to seem discourteous to her.

[Laughter.]

Ulster University has relocated much of its product to the city centre and will be very much part of the project and how it moves forward. I think particularly about the safety of students who will want to cycle to the campus or even walk from the surrounding area. Will that be part of the project developed by her Department?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. I met representatives of Ulster University to discuss its project and what the Department can do to assist, particularly as it moves a considerable number of students into the city centre.

Measures are included in the scheme to provide better connections between Yorkgate Station and the campus for those who want to walk or cycle. The scheme proposal includes high-quality footway links along both sides of York Street. Those will replace the existing fractured arrangements and take account of the increased pedestrian movements associated with the development.

Inbound and outbound cycleways are included along the length of York Street. Enhanced cycle provision, including improved connections to the streets at either end of the scheme, which arose from the consultation, was presented at the public inquiry. The inspectors' report gives their views on the matter, and a departmental statement will set out my Department's response in due course.

We look forward to the university relocating and the regeneration of that side of Belfast. Hopefully, it will improve and assist with plans for improved public transport in and around that area.

Alastair Patterson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Given that European funding could make up 40% of the total package for the York Street interchange, has the Minister given thought to the effect that Brexit would have on the future of this much-needed project?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. At this stage, it is too soon to comment, as we have not yet had the referendum. I guess that we will cross that bridge at that time.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Chris Hazzard is not in his place. David Hilditch is not in his place. I call Kieran McCarthy.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

12. Mr McCarthy asked the Minister for Regional Development for her assessment of the condition of the roads in the Ards peninsula. (AQO 9878/11-16)

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

My Department has a duty to maintain all public roads in reasonable condition. Regular inspections of the road network are carried out and defects prioritised for repair depending on their severity. Roads may also be repaired as part of planned programmes of work, such as resurfacing, surface dressing or larger planned patching subject to available resources. In the current financial year, over £900,000 has been spent on resurfacing schemes in the Ards area, and I can confirm that approximately 55% of the allocated budget for resurfacing in the Ards and north Down area has been spent on roads in the Ards peninsula. I believe that that represents a significant investment in monetary terms and a commitment to maintain the roads in the Ards peninsula. As a Member for the area, I welcome that investment and recognise the importance of investing in our road maintenance in Ards and across Northern Ireland.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

That is the end of our time for listed questions. We now move on to topical questions.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I wish the Minister well.

[Laughter.]

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. On behalf of Kieran McCarthy and me, I commend you on your time in office. Is that OK, Kieran?

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Hear, hear.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

T1. Ms Boyle asked the Minister for Regional Development for an update on the commencement of phase 1(b) of the A5. (AQT 3661/11-16)

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for her question. I announced a public consultation for the whole scheme in February, and that will go on to 4 April. This relates to the environmental statement for the full length of the scheme, along with a new draft direction order, draft vesting orders and stopping up of private access. That is for the length of the route from Newbuildings to Ballygawley, and that obviously includes the 1(b) section. The current funding profile agreed to 2020-21 would mean that 1(a) is commenced in 2017, which means that it should be completed by 2019, with 1(b), which is south of Omagh to Ballygawley, hopefully commencing at the latter part of the five-year budget period. That will require some further work with DFP on the funding package and is very much subject to budget.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Minister, I thank your officials and staff for their assistance during the consultations and the exhibitions that have gone on throughout. Their assistance was greatly appreciated not just by us MLAs but by others, including those who will be affected on that road. Minister, what has your feedback been to date on the exhibitions at the consultation?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for her question. I have spoken to officials about this. The exhibitions were very well attended: we had in the region of 1,054 registered attendees. Feedback from officials was that it had been positive, with the vast majority of those attending very supportive of the scheme. However, I am aware that there are those who have concerns about their properties, and that is absolutely understandable, given the impact that the scheme will have on those families as we move forward through the scheme. My officials will work closely with those landowners to assist them in any way that they can as we move forward.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

T3. Mr Allen asked the Minister for Regional Development what parking provisions are in place for disabled people in East Belfast. (AQT 3663/11-16)

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. Disabled parking bays are available in East Belfast as they are across Northern Ireland. They are in a number of areas, including provision in car parks, on-street parking and in private shopping centres. If the Member has a particular area that he believes my officials should look at and that would benefit from additional disabled bays, I will be happy to discuss it with him.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, I have been approached by constituents with concerns about the Belmont Road. They are concerned about the parking bay that is already in existence there being abused by individuals who do not have or are not displaying a disabled badge. I know that we are heading towards the end of the mandate, but can the Minister give me a commitment that her officials will provide enforcement and look to add bays?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. I am aware that traffic attendants are in that area at least five days a week. It is for them to ensure that badges are displayed in the correct manner and that penalty charge notices are issued to prevent such behaviour continuing in those bays.

I am more than happy to meet the Member alongside officials to discuss further the issue arising at that particular point along the road. I appreciate that it is a very busy road. There are lots of shops in the area, as well as cafes and restaurants, so there should be frequent movement of traffic in those parking areas anyway. As I said, I am happy to discuss it further with the Member.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Question 4 has been withdrawn. Daithí McKay is not in his place to ask question 5.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

T6. Mr G Robinson asked the Minister for Regional Development for an update on the requested improvements to the Broad Road/Greystone Road junction in Limavady. (AQT 3666/11-16)

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. I am aware of his interest in the area. I advise him that Transport NI has a scheme proposal to provide a roundabout at the junction. I can say that detailed design and acquisition procedures are well-advanced, and the scheme will move forward, subject to the completion of land acquisition and the necessary finance, as always, being in place.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for her reply. I commend her on her term of office as well.

That junction is very busy, and many road users find it very hazardous. I realise that the Minister is very busy, but I and some of my colleagues would greatly appreciate a site meeting with her at the junction.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. My diary secretary will be panicking at the number of meetings that I have agreed to before the end of this session, but I am more than content to meet the Member in his constituency.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

T7. Mr D McIlveen asked the Minister for Regional Development for an update on her Department's blue badge scheme. (AQT 3667/11-16)

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. The blue badge scheme, which already provides a wide range of parking concessions for people with severe walking disabilities and those who are partially blind, is valued by all those who need extra support. Last year, my Department published the findings of a consultation process, and a number of key recommendations emerged that, I am pleased to say, received wide-ranging support from blue badge holders and other stakeholders. The recommendations included extending the eligibility criteria to include children between the ages of two and three with specific medical conditions. I am pleased to announce that that will come into force from 1 April. Furthermore, facilitating existing benefits such as the personal independence payment to support applications will come into effect when welfare reform is enacted in June 2016.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer. I am very glad that the last question that I asked in this mandate — of her anyway — delivered some good news. There had been some concerns about the fact that, historically, there was at times a backlog in processing blue badge applications. A lot of time was involved in getting them processed. Is the Minister able to advise us whether anything has been done to ensure that a more streamlined application process is in place to ensure that those much-needed passes are not bogged down in bureaucracy?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I had the pleasure of being able to go up to Enniskillen to meet those involved in the blue badge processing unit, and I commend them for the work that they have been doing. Obviously, they had been under a great deal of pressure. The backlog is being worked through, and I am glad to say that the new system will simplify the process by allowing applicants to apply online.

The blue badge was introduced over 30 years ago, and, during that time, the scheme has been operated at a significantly subsidised rate of just £2. To simplify it and make it a faster system, some slight adjustment in cost will be required, which will see the fee increase from £2 to £10. But the service will be improved and that will allow us to move towards cost recovery.

Gerard Diver (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

T9. Mr Diver asked the Minister for Regional Development, after commending her on her work to date and wishing her well on her return to the Assembly, to outline any plans that her Department has to put measures in place to make the Caw roundabout safer, given that it is an issue of great road safety concern in the Foyle constituency — concern that he is sure that Mr Middleton, who is sitting beside the Minister, will share. (AQT 3669/11-16)

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. There is a survey, and an initial analysis has been carried out in relation to collision history in and around that particular roundabout. My officials are carrying out a much more detailed assessment of that area in order to establish what remedial measures are required. At this stage, I do not have that information. It should be with my Department within the next couple of months.

Gerard Diver (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for her response and look forward to the results of that review. Will the Department ensure that it is taking into account the significance of that particular roundabout, which is, obviously, on a cross-border route? A lot of traffic, not just in the Foyle and Derry area, goes through it; the route is transnational in nature. A much-publicised incident recently involved the PSNI; even they had an accident on that route. Whatever the criteria used in the Department, can we ensure that roads that are of particular risk are brought to the top of whatever list is being considered?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. Obviously, I am familiar with that roundabout. As he says, it is busy. Approximately 50,000 vehicles use it daily, which is quite incredible. Traffic surveys have been carried out in the last couple of years in advance of this. However, I think that it would be prudent of us to wait for the assessment to be concluded and to move forward from there, with regard to where it sits within the priority.

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

T10. Mr McGlone asked the Minister for Regional Development how much extra has been allocated this year for road maintenance in the Mid Ulster District Council area. (AQT 3670/11-16)

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

I offer my apologies for not being present for a question yesterday. It appears that the agenda moved much more rapidly than I had anticipated.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. I do not have very specific information on that, but he will be aware that I was able to secure additional funding in the November monitoring round. Also, in the earlier part of this year, I was able to secure some initial efficiency savings, amounting to somewhere in the region of £3·2 million, which is being distributed around the divisions. With regard to the mid-Ulster area — I am not sure whether this includes all of the Member's constituency, but it certainly includes Cookstown, Magherafelt and Dungannon — an additional estimated £1·4 million was received for structural maintenance and around £800,000 for routine maintenance.

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

I thank the Minister for her response. The key issue is that I have received numerous complaints about potholes and the increased damage done. I had a complaint fairly recently from a guy who sent me a photograph of the rim of his car, which had been very severely buckled. I do not have to have the information today, but could the Minister provide me with details in writing, at some stage, on whether there has been an increase in the number of claims for damage, as a consequence of potholes, in that particular area in mid-Ulster?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. I think that all Members in the Chamber could probably relay similar stories from their areas. As you are aware, additional moneys have been made available. Divisional managers have been working very hard to get through backlogs and are prioritising main routes in that. There are figures for claims made for damage to vehicles, and I am happy to provide that information to the Member.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

That is the end of our questions to the Minister for Regional Development. We will now move on to questions to the Minister for Social Development.

Oral Answers to Questions — Social Development

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I advise Members that question 6 has been withdrawn.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

1. Mrs Cochrane asked the Minister for Social Development when the 710 Northern Ireland Housing Executive properties in East Belfast with Economy 7, oil or solid fuel heating, will be converted to gas in accordance with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive programme of heating replacement. (AQO 9882/11-16)

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for her question. The Housing Executive has advised me that, pursuant to your previous question on this matter, a further 46 homes in East Belfast have been converted to gas, leaving 664 that have Economy 7, oil or solid fuel heating still to be converted. Of those, 358 are included in heating replacement schemes that are either ongoing or due to commence by April 2017. A further 181 homes have refused to have gas installed. The remaining properties are in two of the tower blocks that the Housing Executive does not currently plan to convert to gas.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Can he provide an update on the policy that his Department has on converting houses from oil heating when they are on the gas network?

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Housing Executive policy is to install gas heating in accordance with its programme in properties where gas is available and it is technically feasible to do so.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Can the Minister tell us whether the Housing Executive is working to a time frame for converting costly and environmentally damaging electrical heating appliances to gas?

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes. That is the intention where it is doable, but it may not be practical in every instance. Surprisingly, and similar to the answer to the main and supplementary questions, some people, in particular, elderly people, do not want changes in their home. They do not want the hassle. There is no enforcement when a tenant says, "Look, I would prefer to carry on with things the way they are". But yes, the objective is to replace Economy 7.

Gerard Diver (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Are there any thoughts or plans in his Department to reduce the qualifying period that people have to meet to have their heating upgraded to a more modern system, such as the modern gas system, given that this would be a very clear way of taking people out of fuel poverty?

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Member raises an interesting question about whether it is possible to reduce the qualifying time. There are no plans to do that at the moment. However, since it has been raised, I will look at this in the few days that I remain in the Department. I think it is something that should be looked at, and, if it is practical to do so, I cannot see why it cannot be done. But there will still be restraints, not least financial restraints, on doing the whole thing.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I remind Members that they should continue to stand if they wish to ask a question and be called.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

2. Mr Lyons asked the Minister for Social Development how he is improving insulation in social housing. (AQO 9883/11-16)

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Housing Executive makes long-term investment in tenants' homes through planned programmes of work, including a number of different schemes aimed at preventing heat loss, improving energy efficiency and insulation. Those include the upgrading of roof space insulation, the replacement of single-glazed windows with double glazing and the replacement of old inefficient heating systems with modern fuel-efficient boilers.

Its external cyclic maintenance (ECM) schemes cover any issues relating to the external fabric of the dwelling and, where damp, mould growth or condensation have been identified, it is addressed. The response maintenance programme is also used to remedy immediate problems that may arise.

In relation to new-build social homes in the social housing development programme, the Department is currently considering whether additional housing association grant funding should be provided for schemes where thermal efficiency exceeds current building regulations standards. Consultation is currently ongoing, and a final decision is expected later this year.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer and for all the work that he has carried out in the Department since he took office. I very much appreciate that he has taken the time to meet me on a number of issues that I have brought to his attention, and insulation is one of them. Further to that, will he confirm whether the findings of the cavity wall insulation inspection report of 2014 by the South Eastern Regional College (SERC) will be taken into account by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE)?

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes. I can confirm that the Member has been quite consistent and, indeed, persistent in relation to this issue. I have met him to discuss it in some detail. The issues contained in the SERC/NIHE report on cavity wall insulation are a UK-wide issue and are not unique to Northern Ireland. The Housing Executive has told me that it has no current plans to isolate the specific properties that are referred to in the report from the remainder of its stock.

I wrote to the Housing Executive about this matter further on 8 February to ask how it will rectify the situation in the remaining homes. It is the Housing Executive's intention to bring forward programmes of work related to insulation for properties that have been identified by the recent stock condition survey as in most need and in line with the asset management strategy. This work will require a focus on the significant number of properties that have, to date, not benefited from any insulation work.

Furthermore, essentially the Housing Executive's view is that the limited resources that it has available for investment should be determined by a strategic response to the formidable body of evidence that has been provided by a comprehensive survey of one quarter — around 22,000 — of all its homes, rather than an issue-specific report that is based on a sample of just 206 homes.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat. Many people across the North, including people in rural areas, live in private rented or social housing that has little or no insulation. What strategy does the Department have to deal with that serious issue?

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I take the Member's point. The joint DSD/Housing Executive asset commission has provided the Housing Executive with comprehensive and robust data on the condition of its stock and a holistic understanding of its long-term future investments. The Member mentioned the private sector, and it should be noted that grants and funding have been made available to private landlords to tackle the issue. I encourage private landlords — I ask all Members to do likewise — to make use of the grant aid that is available. Sometimes, it is the case that there is not enough awareness of exactly what is available, but that may change in future. Hopefully, it will not be long until we see the whole of the housing stock, whether it is in the private or the social sector — it has to be acknowledged that the private rented sector is one of the major landlords in Northern Ireland — making use of the funding that is available in order to address the issue that he raised.