Northern Ireland Assembly, 22 November 2016

599 contributions from 86 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Mr Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order about the viability of a portion of our business next Monday. I apologise that the issue is quite complex and, therefore, ask for some forbearance. I will deal with the point as succinctly as I can.

On Monday, we are due to discuss a legislative consent motion pertaining to the Policing and Crime Bill. One of the components of the Policing and Crime Bill that that consent motion seeks approval for is that referred to as pardons for obsolete criminal offences. Our Standing Order 42A has a very prescribed process for how you get to the point of a legislative consent motion. It requires the laying of a memorandum, but that memorandum can only be triggered by the event which imports into the Bill that portion that you wish to apply by legislative consent motion.

It is my understanding that the aspect of the Policing and Crime Bill which imports, in respect of Northern Ireland, pardons for former criminal offences, only became part of the Bill on 9 November by amendment in the House of Lords, yet the legislative consent motion memorandum was issued and is dated and was laid on 7 November and, therefore, I respectfully submit, is void in that respect because you cannot prejudge or presume the content until it is part of the Bill. Since the legislative consent motion then triggers the referral to the Committee — and if the memorandum which triggers that is itself void — then the reference is void, and the timeline, whereby, within five days of that report, you can debate it, is voided. So, I respectfully suggest that that aspect of the legislative consent motion is not compatible with the very prescribed and specific procedure in Standing Order 42A.

I ask you to rule that it will not therefore be possible on Monday to debate that aspect of the legislative consent motion.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for raising that. It is important that the Assembly take its decisions to hand authority to Westminster for devolved matters seriously, and that is why I thank you for raising the point. For that particular legislative consent motion, I will consider the issue that you have raised.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Ms Clare Bailey has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have up to three minutes to speak.

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

I am handing in this petition from Amnesty International to the Minister of Justice. It is signed by 45,400 people and calls for abortion law reform in Northern Ireland. Amnesty International, academics and many others have carried out extensive research into Northern Ireland's abortion laws, and we have repeatedly been found not to be compliant with the Human Rights Act, to which we are signatories. Even our courts have ruled on the issue, and again we have been found to be in breach of the human rights that we claim to uphold.

Since Marie Stopes opened its doors in Belfast city centre in 2012, people have begun to understand that abortion is not always illegal here and have started to question the issue as a whole, and our laws in particular. Amnesty International's public petition sets out a few facts. Northern Ireland's abortion laws are among the harshest in Europe and violate the basic human rights of women and girls. Abortion is illegal even in pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or where the foetus has no chance of surviving. Only in extremely restrictive cases in which a woman's health or life is in serious danger can she choose to access a termination. Instead of accessing the free, safe and legal healthcare that they need and would get on the NHS anywhere else in the UK, women here are forced by state law to carry the pregnancy to term or to travel elsewhere, with no regard to the psychological or physical impact on them or their family.

Midwives and doctors also face the great threat in our law of life imprisonment for involvement in any termination. Even every stillbirth in Northern Ireland is legally required to undergo a pathologist's post-mortem, and, if the parents refuse that, they face a public hearing with a coroner's autopsy, for which no consent is required. There is nowhere else in the world where that happens.

The petition from Amnesty, which 45,400 people have signed, calls on us to bring existing law into line with international human rights laws and standards, to make abortion available in cases of rape, incest or severe and fatal foetal impairment and to stop the criminalisation of women and girls who access abortion services. The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland trust women to make these decisions in their best interests, and it is time that the House did the same.

Ms Bailey moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I will forward a copy of the petition to the Minister of Justice and the Committee for Justice.

Ministerial Statements

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

In compliance with section 52C(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, we wish to make the following statement on the twenty-third meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in plenary format, which was held in Armagh on Friday 18 November 2016. The Executive Ministers who attended the meeting have agreed that we can make this report on their behalf.

Our delegation was led by the First Minister, Arlene Foster MLA, and me. The following Executive Ministers were also in attendance: Minister Givan, Minister Hamilton, Minister Hazzard, Minister McIlveen, Minister Ó Muilleoir, Minister Sugden, Minister Weir, junior Minister Fearon and junior Minister Ross. The Irish Government delegation was led by the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny TD.

At the start of the meeting, the Council noted that the bid to host the 2023 Rugby World Cup had been formally launched earlier in the week. Both Governments reaffirmed their commitment to work closely together to deliver a world-class proposal for hosting the tournament.

We had a discussion on the performance of the economy in each jurisdiction. Both Governments remain committed to growing their economy, and Ministers spoke about the initiatives under way in each jurisdiction to support economic growth.

The Council had an in-depth discussion on the implications of the result of the referendum on membership of the EU. It was noted that full sectoral audits had been carried out by Departments of the Executive and the Irish Government to identify impacts, risks, opportunities and contingencies that may arise following the UK's intended withdrawal from the EU. Ministers will continue their discussions at NSMC sectoral level in the coming months, and bilateral discussions will continue, as required, between relevant Ministers and officials.

The Council was advised that the Executive will continue their bilateral discussions with the British Government, and, with the other devolved Administrations, will continue the internal discussions with the British Government in the joint ministerial council. The Irish Government will continue their regular bilateral engagement with the British Government, EU institutions and fellow EU member states.

Ministers noted that senior officials from the Executive Office, the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will continue to meet regularly on a bilateral basis to review developments, serving as a high-level working group on Brexit issues. The Council was advised that, in taking forward their discussions, both Governments will be guided by some common principles.

The Council received an update on the progress being made on the implementation of the various commitments under section E of the Fresh Start Agreement. Ministers noted that a public inquiry into the A5 scheme was under way and that the inspector's report was expected around May 2017. Subject to the successful completion of statutory procedures, a decision can then be made regarding progression to the construction stage, which remains programmed for late 2017.

The Council welcomed the meeting in October between officials and key stakeholders about the possible options for the Narrow Water bridge project and noted that further discussions would be held in January 2017. It was noted that phase 1 of the reopening of the Ulster canal from Lough Erne to Castle Saunderson is progressing and that the tender for the final stage of phase 1 is expected to issue shortly, with a planned site commencement in the spring of 2017. The establishment of the Ulster canal advisory forum of key stakeholders, which held its first meeting in September, was welcomed.

The Council was advised that Derry City and Strabane District Council and Donegal County Council had agreed a formal partnership agreement that outlines the governance, financial management and administrative arrangements for the €5 million north-west development fund.

Ministers agreed that a further update on the Fresh Start E commitments would be brought to the next NSMC plenary meeting.

The next item on the agenda was the north-west gateway initiative. The Council welcomed that Donegal County Council and Derry City and Strabane District Council are working to fully implement the arrangements outlined in their north-west strategic growth plan. The Council noted the Irish Government's allocation of €2·5 million to the north-west development fund and that our Executive are finalising their match allocation. The Council was advised that formal governance, financial management and administrative arrangements for oversight and delivery of the north-west strategic growth plan and the associated north-west development fund have been agreed by the two councils. Ministers welcomed the establishment of the north-west strategic growth partnership and that, in accordance with the July plenary decision, senior officials from relevant Departments in both jurisdictions would meet Donegal County Council and Derry City and Strabane District Council in December as part of the north-west strategic growth partnership.

The Council was advised that officials are working to identify a suitable date for a meeting of relevant Ministers in the north-west.

Finally, the Council approved a schedule of NSMC meetings proposed by the joint secretariat, which includes the next NSMC plenary meeting in the first quarter of 2017.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his statement. As a sports fan, I particularly welcome the bid for the Rugby World Cup. I understand that the last event added over £1 billion directly to the UK's GDP. I understand that, to secure the next event, Japan paid a fee of something like £90 million to the Rugby World Cup organisers. Will the Minister detail the costs and potential benefits to Northern Ireland should the 2023 event come our way?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I was delighted to be in Dublin last week with our Economy Minister Simon Hamilton, and all of us are very excited that what is effectively an all-island bid to host the Rugby World Cup 2023 has successfully passed the application phase, with South Africa and France also through to the candidate phase, which commenced on 1 November. As the Member will know, details of the Ireland bid were successfully launched on 15 November at the Aviva Stadium, and we will provide stiff competition for the other contenders. I am convinced that we have a strong, compelling bid, with a great team of people who are now working on the final stage, including the Irish Rugby Football Union (IRFU) and its consultants.

The oversight board led by Dick Spring and the interdepartmental group set up in both jurisdictions have worked hard to get us to this stage, and I can give assurances that our Executive will continue to give their support to ensure that we deliver the best bid possible. Our passion for rugby, our visitor welcome and our professional service provide an ideal recipe for the delivery of a successful event.

The previous examples of cost given by the Member are in the ballpark of where we need to be but one thing is absolutely certain: we believe that we can recover that many, many times over as a result of the unique offer that is our all-island approach. We are very confident that the Administrations North and South will be able to put a compelling bid before those who will have to decide. Dick Spring, who is leading it all, exudes considerable confidence that many rugby associations throughout the world will be very attracted to the island of Ireland for the Rugby World Cup 2023. The video that was launched, with Liam Neeson narrating, was very powerful and will help in the bid.

The ballpark figures are in and around what the Member suggested, but it is very difficult to be accurate about the exact cost at this stage. Whatever the cost is, we are absolutely confident that we can recover it many times over.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the deputy First Minister for the statement. His colleagues in the Republic have given assurances of continued cooperation for the mutual benefit of the people who live in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Will he assure the House that this will continue once the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, as he outlined in the case of the north-west?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

The big decision that was taken by both Administrations at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting — by the Executive Office, the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Foreign Affairs — was to put a high-level working group of civil servants in place to deal with the challenges that clearly lie ahead.

As I said in the Assembly yesterday, given some of the confusion emanating from London at this time, everything is on the table. It is very hard to know, very difficult to put your hand on your heart and say that you know exactly what the outcome is going to be, because the debate moves from a soft Brexit to a hard Brexit. Many people fear the prospect of a hard Brexit and its implications for economic prospects here in the North, and in England, Scotland and Wales. It is still early days. The First Minister and I are very focused on our responsibilities so that we can contribute to the processes that we are now clearly involved in, with the British Government and the Irish Government, to ensure that the outcome is about protecting the best interests of the people whom we represent.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I welcome the Minister's statement and the positivity that emanated from the meeting and has continued since, particularly with regard to the discussions on the EU referendum result. The deputy First Minister said in response to the previous question that the ongoing work between the Executive and the Southern Government will be guided by common principles. Perhaps he could elaborate on those common principles.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

We all acknowledge that there must be recognition that the situation that we have to deal with is unique. It has to be recognised that we have a land border with another EU member state and that there have been difficult issues relating to that border throughout our history and, indeed, the peace process.

We have to ensure that our businesses retain their competitiveness and do not incur additional cost, which is a very real danger. As we go forward, we also need to ensure that our access to labour, skilled and unskilled, is really important to us, given, as I said yesterday, that Wrightbus, for example, sells its buses to London, Singapore and Hong Kong, and something like 20% of its workforce comes from other EU countries.

Our agri-food industry is totally dependent on people from other EU countries for its success, and, of course, we have very ambitious targets to reach in the development of that aspect of our economy. We also need to take into account the nature of our economy. As I said, agri-food, for example, is vital, and anything that would impact on that sector has to be considered very carefully.

Energy is also a key priority for us, and we have to ensure that it is given adequate recognition throughout the negotiating process.

Of course, the common travel area is extremely important, not just to us but to the Irish Government, and that must also be recognised.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his statement. Was there any discussion at the NSMC last week about potential future membership for Northern Ireland of the EEA or EFTA?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

No, there were no detailed conversations about any of that. Obviously, the overarching discussion was about what we need to do in the immediate future and about charging officials from our office, the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Foreign Affairs with the responsibility of looking at all these matters and how they might impact on our circumstances.

The Taoiseach described the North/South Ministerial Council meeting that we attended last Friday as the most important meeting that he has ever attended. Certainly, the significance of the Brexit circumstances that we are all faced with is absolutely massive for the island of Ireland, North and South, and the work that is going on in Departments in Dublin and here is extensive. The audit has taken place. All areas are being covered and looked at very carefully with a view to ensuring that, when the officials complete their work under the guidance of the Taoiseach, the First Minister and me, we are best placed to go forward. Hopefully, we can go forward with a common position to put to the British Government and the European Union that is about, in our case, protecting the interests of the people whom we represent.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his statement. Will he comment on the reports in this week's 'Sunday Independent', and the subtext at the last meeting of the all-island forum on civic dialogue, that there is a frustration in the Irish Government that, while there is a lot of cooperation on scoping out the practical issues, there has, to date, been no clear ask from the Northern Ireland Government on what special status would look like going forward and that, if we do not have a clear ask in the very near future, we are in danger of missing the opportunity to sort out Northern Ireland's interests?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

That is a challenge for all of us. It is not unreasonable against the backdrop of uncertainty and confusion that appears to emanate from London on their objectives in any negotiations with the European Union. Of course, the British Government have not disclosed their hand on the basis that they think that it would weaken their position in the negotiations, which inevitably puts the devolved institutions at a disadvantage.

I do not speak for Wales or Scotland; I speak, along with the First Minister, for the situation that we have to deal with. We have a responsibility to ensure that, as we go forward, there is an ask that best protects the interests of the people whom we represent. That is why the wise decision was made at the NSMC to put in place a high-level working group of the most senior civil servants in both Administrations, under the stewardship of the Taoiseach, the First Minister and me, to chart a way forward.

In the Opposition in the Assembly, there are different opinions, and that is quite legitimate. Even in our Administration, there are different opinions. We have to reconcile all that and, hopefully, come to a position that can find favour with the vast majority of MLAs. I said, during the all-island discussions in Dublin — the offer is still open — that I am willing to engage with the Alliance Party, the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists, because we would be very foolish to think that we should do all this on our own and exclude other parties that have made important contributions over the last 20 years in negotiations that have propelled our society forward.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Minister will know that the Ulster canal is an important project in my constituency. Does he see it as an Executive priority?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I clearly indicated during my initial contribution that it is a priority. Phase 1 of the reopening of the 2·5 kilometre stretch of the Ulster canal from Upper Lough Erne to the International Scout Centre at Castle Saunderson is ongoing. The work commenced in August 2015, and site investigation works, followed by the dredging of the River Finn and the removal of the dredged material, are now complete. Preparation of tender documentation for the next stage — the construction of the Derrykerrib Bridge in the canal section — is now being finalised. It is planned to issue a tender shortly with a view to work commencing in spring 2017 after any floodwaters have receded, with an estimated contract period of 18 months.

We welcome the establishment by Minister Heather Humphreys and Minister Chris Hazzard of an Ulster canal advisory forum, which met for the first time on 23 September 2016. That will look at the options for advancing the Ulster canal project and examine potential funding mechanisms, including existing funding streams and a leveraging of funding from other sources.

Waterways Ireland, as the lead organisation, in collaboration with local councils and other stakeholders, is progressing the development of the Ulster canal greenway. An application for INTERREG IVa funding for a 22-kilometre section of the greenway between Smithborough, County Monaghan, and Middletown, County Armagh, was successful, and a letter of offer is expected to issue in the near future. We are moving forward decisively on the Ulster canal.

Danny Kennedy (Deputy Speaker, Newry and Armagh)

I am interested in the replies thus far from the deputy First Minister. Will he explain why he accepts the democratic will of the people of the United States in a presidential election, when the victor did not win the popular vote, but not the verdict of the people of the United Kingdom in the EU referendum?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

From our perspective, the decision made in the EU referendum has very profound consequences for us in the North of Ireland, particularly given that the majority of people in the North voted to remain. Quite clearly, that could not have been achieved if it had not been a cross-community vote, which, in my view, was supported by nationalists, republicans and unionists.

Now, whatever about the vote in the United States, the people have spoken, and the outcome is that Donald Trump is their President-elect. We, as a responsible Administration, have to deal with that, as we have done with changes that have happened in other Administrations, whether that be in Dublin or London, as we have seen over the course of the last 20 years. From my perspective, as a responsible politician, working with the First Minister, I have to recognise that we are faced with a situation in which the British Prime Minister has declared that she will trigger article 50 of the Lisbon treaty by the end of March. As someone who has been at the heart of probably some of the most important, historic negotiations that this island has seen over the last 20 years, I have to deal with that reality. Along with the First Minister, and hopefully supported by the majority of MLAs in the Assembly, I have to try to forge a way forward which protects the interests of the people whom we represent. It is no secret where the First Minister is coming from, and it is no secret where I am coming from, but we have to deal with the reality of the situation which is before us. The top priority for us has to be to protect the political and social interaction and economic interest of the people whom we represent.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Agus gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas. I welcome the Minister's statement. I am delighted that he was able to take all the Ministers down to the beautiful city of Armagh. I just want to touch on the issue of the UK referendum. Were there any discussions on the INTERREG programme and the threat that withdrawal of that money will pose to border corridor groups like East Border Region and the work that they have done over the last number of years? Apparently they will be under severe threat now from the process of leaving Europe.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

The First Minister and I addressed that issue when we wrote to the British Prime Minister. The good news is that we are pleased that almost €120 million has already been approved for INTERREG IVa. We expect the INTERREG programme to be fully committed before the end of the year. Obviously, the longer term is a scenario that we will have to deal with in the course of any upcoming negotiations.

Richie McPhillips (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his statement and answers so far. It will come as no massive shock that I will be asking about the implications of Brexit as well. The deputy First Minister notes in his statement that all Departments have conducted internal audits on the possible impacts that Brexit will have. Can he outline whether he will publish these documents? Can he also update the House on what discussions he has had with the Southern Government concerning the future of the border?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Well, at the last NSMC plenary meeting on 4 July 2016, it was agreed that a full audit would be undertaken in all sectors to identify the possible impacts, risks, opportunities and contingencies arising in the phases preceding and following the UK's withdrawal from the EU; that this work will, in turn, be submitted to ministerial sectoral meetings for consideration as to the strategic and cross-cutting issues arising; and that final priorities will be agreed by the next NSMC plenary for both pre-negotiation and negotiation phases.

I think that the Member will understand that, given the nature of the NSMC, involving our Administration and the Irish Government, a lot of these documents are confidential. We could not release any of this information without the express agreement of the Irish Government. That is something that has never been previously asked. It is interesting that the Member has chosen to call for that. From our perspective, we will have a discussion. I will discuss that with the First Minister, with a view to making an assessment as to whether it is sensible to see the outworking of processes that civil servants have been involved in put into the public domain. As I reiterate, that cannot be done without the express agreement of the Irish Government.

The First Minister and I addressed the issue of the border in our letter to the British Prime Minister. We have made it absolutely clear that we do not want a border. We want people to be able to travel as they have done in the past. That is also the Irish Government's position. It came up during the North/South Ministerial Council meeting. I think that everybody is focused on ensuring that we go forward with the normality that we have been used to over the course of recent times, with people being able to drive, for example, from the centre of Belfast to the centre of Dublin in just over an hour and a half. Free travel back and forward is absolutely crucial.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his statement. On economic matters, are we now satisfied that the Industrial Development Agency Ireland and Invest Northern Ireland will operate in a fair and equitable manner, that any problems caused by the previous accusation that IDA Ireland is attempting to poach our industrial opportunities have been dealt with and that we can move on?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

As Members will be aware, the First Minister met the Taoiseach and had a very good meeting in Dublin last week. That is all that needs to be said about it. I think that we are satisfied. The First Minister and I travel extensively throughout the world. We have always had tremendous support from our diplomatic service and the Irish Government diplomats everywhere we go. During the engagements at the North/South Ministerial Council, the Taoiseach reiterated that the Irish diplomatic services will be available to the First Minister and me on our shortly-to-be-undertaken visit to China.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his statement and answers thus far. My question is with regard to the north-west gateway initiative. I hope that the Executive can move swiftly to finalise their allocation to the north-west development fund, regardless of the reason for the delay. It is important that we continue to explore interventions that will alleviate hardship in the north-west area. Does the Minister consider a city deal for Derry with a cross-border dimension to be a possible means of doing so?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I assure the Member that the issue of our balance of the €5 million is administrative more than anything else. In terms of alleviating hardship in the north-west, I was delighted yesterday to be, along with our Health Minister, at the new radiotherapy centre at Altnagelvin hospital. The Ulster Unionists tried to stop that radiotherapy centre during their stewardship of the Health Department.

Danny Kennedy (Deputy Speaker, Newry and Armagh)

That is not right.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

It is absolutely correct. Of course, when Edwin Poots became the Minister, Peter Robinson and I took the decision to go ahead. Something like 1,500 people will be treated there each year. It is a tremendous boost to people in Derry, Strabane, Limavady, Coleraine and County Donegal to have that facility. We also have —

Danny Kennedy (Deputy Speaker, Newry and Armagh)

On a point of order.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Let me take the point of order at the end of questions to the statement.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

We also have 220 people now employed at that centre. They are people of the highest specialisms imaginable in medicine. The dedication that they have to that centre is absolutely amazing. I pay tribute to everybody— and other political parties, including the Member's — who was involved from the very beginning and right down the line: people like Bairbre de Brún and, of course, the Health Minister now, for progressing something that will bring enormous health benefits to a region that has, unfortunately, had to see people from Donegal travelling to Galway and people from Derry travelling to Belfast. That is now ending. It is a great news story that argues very strongly for how important all-island cooperation is, particularly in the region of people's health.

A city deal is presently under consideration. I know that people were advocating one for Belfast. We are very keen to ensure that any advantage gained by that is also under consideration by us for Derry.

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

The deputy First Minister, in reply to a question, referred to a common position to put to the British Government. In the statement, he also referred to being guided by some common principles. Usefully, he has put some on the record today in reply to Mr McGuigan's question — namely, business competitiveness, energy, common travel and access to labour. Will the deputy First Minister and the First Minister lodge a statement in the Library outlining what all the principles might be that would inform the discussions and confirming that the principles will include no loss of funding to the Northern Ireland finances, guarantees on the four freedoms, access to further EU funding and no diminution of any of the standards that we have benefited from because of EU membership and membership of the wider European project, including those relating to environment, labour and human rights?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

That clearly strengthens the case that I made earlier in the conversation that it would be useful if other political parties who are not in the Government were to make a contribution to the discussion as we go forward. That is why I made the offer of discussions with the Ulster Unionists, the SDLP, the Alliance Party and whoever else — even the smaller parties in the Assembly — to have a conversation about where all of this needs to go. The First Minister and I have already outlined a number of vital issues in our letter to the British Prime Minister, and, of course, in our conversations at the North/South Ministerial Council, we have dealt with a number of principles. They are not exclusive of where we need to go on what will probably be the most important negotiation that any of us has undertaken in 20 years.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Whatever the hyperbole coming from the talking shop in Armagh, it is clear that the Executive is a house divided on the most seminal issue of our day. The First Minister accepts and supports the reality of Brexit: the deputy First Minister grasps at every straw to try to thwart the will of the people and seeks to talk up the nonsense of special status. I ask the deputy First Minister again the question that he did not answer yesterday, so that we know who is chasing their tail: has he any support from his partner in government for the notion that, post Brexit, there will be a status for Northern Ireland that dilutes our leaving vis-à-vis the rest of the United Kingdom?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

That is probably one of the few questions ever asked by the Member that did not mention the IRA. Obviously, as we go forward, we are very focused on the responsibilities that we have as First Minister and deputy First Minister. We are all experienced politicians. We understand that we are in the preliminary stages of what will be a momentous negotiation that will affect our futures. There is a very clear indication from the outcome of the North/South Ministerial Council meeting and the formation of a high-level working group under the stewardship of the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the South, the First Minister and me that these are all issues that we will have conversations — even negotiations — about over the coming period.

Obviously, we want to be ready for any triggering of article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, so that we are in a position to make an argument that is really about protecting the interests of all the people we represent. What the Member highlights, obviously, is the different positions that the DUP and Sinn Féin had, with others, in the run-in to the referendum debate. The referendum is over, and there are fairly unique circumstances before us. We are more dramatically affected by this than other regions. We will have to have that conversation, and, in conjunction with the British and Irish Governments and the European Union, we will have to chart a way forward that protects the interests of our people.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I will now take Mr Kennedy's point of order.

Danny Kennedy (Deputy Speaker, Newry and Armagh)

Thank you for allowing a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the deputy First Minister wilfully to mislead the House and misrepresent the facts of a situation? When Michael McGimpsey was on the Executive as Ulster Unionist Health Minister, he supported and lobbied for the facilities at Altnagelvin Hospital but was, rightly, concerned about resource funding for that centre. In fact, his predictions that the health service was drastically and seriously underfunded have come true, and we still live with those consequences today.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker —

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Let me deal with the first point of order. The Speaker has no role in adjudicating on the remarks of a Member or a Minister, but the Member has put his concerns on record.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, you have just said that the Member has used a point of order to put his concerns on the record. Is there an issue about the deliberate abuse of points of order by Members who, after they have spoken and had their say, deploy them to get a second bite of the cherry, including, not least, a Deputy Speaker of the House?

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am concerned that, over the past number of weeks, there have been a large number of points of order that have not been adjudged to be points of order. It is something that I intend to address in the coming weeks and months.

That concludes questions on the Minister's statement.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Thank you for giving me the opportunity, a Cheann Comhairle, to make a statement on a rates rethink, spurring economic growth. Inniu, tá pacáiste beart á mholadh agam a bhfuil sé mar aidhm aige nuachóiriú a dhéanamh ar eilimintí intíre agus ar eilimintí tráchtála an chóras rátála, d’fhonn spreagadh a dhéanamh ar an ngeilleagar mar bhunús ar shochaí roinnte agus rathúil. Is iad seo mo mholtaí mar Aire Airgeadais agus tá mé ag súil le dul i gcomhairle fúthu leis an Choiste Airgeadais, le mo chomhghleacaithe san Fheidhmeannas, agus leis an phobal i gcoitinne.

Today, I propose a groundbreaking package of measures aimed at modernising the domestic and commercial elements of the rating system in order to stimulate the economy as the foundation of a shared and prosperous society. These are my proposals as Finance Minister, and I look forward to consulting on them with the Finance Committee, of course, with my colleagues on the Executive and with the wider public. Taken together, the measures constitute the biggest shake-up in rating policy in a generation and signal my commitment to a tax system that is fair and supports prosperity.

Rates are a vital source of public revenue. Money raised through rates funds our schools, our hospitals and other essential services. My aim in setting out these proposals therefore is ultimately to arrive at a refreshed, fit-for-purpose rating system in which citizens and commercial ratepayers contribute according to their ability to funding the building of a modern, inclusive and exemplary society. I also intend to ensure that rates act more as an economic spur. The rates system should encourage regeneration, investment and entrepreneurship and at the same time discourage dereliction and decline.

I will begin with the non-domestic rates proposals. I want to replace the existing small business rate relief scheme with a £22 million investment in small retail and hospitality businesses. That move aligns with the findings of the Ulster University Economic Policy Centre's evaluation, which recommended a more targeted approach. In 2010, the small business rate relief (SBRR) scheme was introduced to provide small businesses with temporary respite from the recession. The Ulster University evaluation found that the scheme had served its limited purpose, helping with cash flow at a particularly difficult time.

It also found that the scheme contributed little to economic growth and the £18m that it cost would not provide value for money in the long term. It therefore recommended replacing the SBRR with a more targeted initiative.

I want to target support under the new scheme at the sectors that are key to the survival of our town and city centres. The statistics show that town centre retail spending is down 10% since the beginning of the century. I would like this new initiative to be easily accessible to small businesses, subject to some simple tests around business investment in the form of, for example, new equipment, skills training or the employment of additional staff. In the time ahead, I would also like to enable companies to access this rates relief by accrediting with the Living Wage Foundation.

I also wish to bring forward a business empowerment zone pilot targeted at small-scale regeneration areas and developed in tandem with other Departments and initiatives. I propose to start in Belfast with two pilots, on the Falls and Newtownards Roads, both areas in need of a greater peace dividend. The west Belfast zone, with special rates relief to encourage business and investment, is likely to stretch from Castle Street through the Gaeltacht Quarter to the bottom of the Whiterock Road. The east Belfast zone is likely to stretch from the bottom of the Newtownards Road through the area now the focus for the EastSide Arts renaissance — CS Lewis Square opens tonight, Mr Speaker — to the Holywood Arches. Those will be confirmed in due course. Having had the pleasure of working extensively in both areas, I know that the will is there to transform those key arterial roads and that a small investment now can reap dividends for years to come.

Another way of revitalising town centres is to make them vibrant living spaces. Therefore, I would also like to take forward a new scheme to incentivise conversion from commercial to residential occupation, by providing a rates incentive for the first occupiers of newly converted premises in our town and city centres. A scheme to encourage people to live in those areas will help to stimulate the night-time economy and assist with issues around footfall that were raised during the consultation.

Another issue concerns the treatment of charity shops. This is a matter where we are striving to get the balance right. Charity shops help to bring people into our high streets or small towns, in particular when times are tough, so we need to make sure that we do not upset the healthy retail mix that exists in many areas. I am all in favour of continuing to single out charity shops on the high street for favourable treatment, but there is a case for limiting their growth. We cannot have our high streets just made up of charity shops. In England, Scotland and Wales, most are charged 20% rates, and local authorities in the South can charge charity shops on the high street. If, for example, we reduced support for charity shops on the high street from 100 per cent to 90 per cent — they pay one tenth of their rates bill — that would represent only a small revenue gain for the Executive. However, it would move us towards the balance principle that everyone on the high street should start to pay something. That was the strong view reflected in the small business rate relief evaluation. I agree with that direction of travel, with the caveat that I would like any future income from charity shops on the high street to go towards supporting entrepreneurship in the social enterprise sector. I look forward to consulting further on the issue.

I would like to address the issue of empty property. Currently, an empty property pays zero rates for three months and 50% thereafter. I want to increase the empty property rate from 50% to 75% of the occupied rate. That remains substantially below what is charged in Scotland, for example, where owners are charged 90% on empty properties, and recognises that our local property market is less buoyant than there. I would also like to remove the initial exemption period of three months. I do not think it necessary, it does not apply to the domestic sector, and it leads to complications in administering it. It is my view that this will encourage the letting of empty properties and increase economic activity. It will, of course, provide additional revenue for the Executive, although, more importantly, it will act as a stimulus for landlords holding empty property to sell up or to offer lower rents and get properties occupied by businesses.

Aligned with that objective, I propose to introduce the rating of empty factories, a class of property that has never been subject to rates. As well as bringing in extra money — up to £2·2 million a year — into the Executive’s finances and the public purse, it will encourage owners to subdivide or let empty factories. It will also remove any doubt about what is a warehouse and what is a factory. Coupled with both changes, I will move forward with proposals for anti-avoidance measures, making landlords liable for rates when they let their premises out to charities on short-term agreements.

At a cost of £58 million, industrial derating is a very generous support to the manufacturing sector. However, manufacturing is a vital part of our economy, providing well-paid jobs often in locations where employment opportunities are lacking, and is highly export-orientated. Given that and the challenging economic circumstances faced, I intend to maintain industrial derating.

A measure that I would like to remove is the new mines seven-year exemption that has been in place since 1852. I see no good reason for retaining the new mines exemption.

I also wish to remove the university halls of residence exemption that was put in place by direct rule Ministers in 2007. This step has already been consulted on, and it will ensure consistency of treatment between those that are managed privately and those that are managed by universities. Indeed, all other students living away from home pay some rates, so this is only fair. Furthermore, I do not believe that it will inhibit the viability of new purpose-built halls of residence, given that student demand is outstripping supply, as the appearance of so many privately run halls testifies. If evidence emerges that university halls of residence need an additional incentive, I will be happy to return to the issue and look at it again.

We are moving towards a system that widens the tax base and shares the load. However, many businesses find themselves in serious hardship due to matters completely outside their control and beyond normal business risk. Victims of flooding are one example. I do not want to see those who find themselves in hardship in such circumstances being closed down because they simply cannot pay their rates bill. The legislative apparatus already exists for hardship relief, but few businesses benefit from it. I have therefore asked my officials to review the operation of the scheme to ensure that it provides help for more of those who are in need.

My intention to commence a new non-domestic revaluation exercise to take effect in 2019 is a clear response to the calls from the business sector. Coming only four years after the revaluation in 2015, it will make our non-domestic rating system more responsive to changes in the wider world, allow it to flex with economic conditions and help to avoid the shocks that occurred last time round. As before, the process will be revenue-neutral. The objective of the measure and, indeed, the whole package is about balancing the tax base, balancing the rates burden and balancing the books after a hard time for business and government finances. I would also like to reassure businesses by enshrining in law revaluations every four years. That happens in many advanced economies throughout the world.

As for the level of the regional rate that will be set as part of the Budget and in recognition of the new era for local government, I would like to give councils the choice of striking their own non-domestic district rate, thereby breaking the historic link that exists with the domestic district rate. Such a move could help councils to attract new businesses and retain old ones.

Fairness underpins much of what I am presenting today, and that extends to the domestic rating system. When the capital value system was being designed, it was designed on the basis that you paid in direct proportion to the value of your home. However, the application of the £400,000 cap means that those in houses with a higher value pay proportionately less than those in middle- or lower-value homes. To me, that is inherently unfair. Take Bill Gates's house — I know that many people would like to take the house of Bill Gates — he pays $1 million a year in property tax on his $100 million Washington state home. If he lived here, the rates on that home would be less than $5,000 a year.

Significant measures are already in place to safeguard elderly pensioners who are asset-rich but income-poor and remain in a high-value family home. We have a generous low-income rate relief scheme that was put in place before the cap came along. In a phased introduction, I wish to charge a regional rate levy of approximately 55% of the rates due on a property to the full value of a home in order to raise an additional £4 million in revenue.

The first thing that I would like to do with domestic rates is to reduce and then remove the early payment discount. I will reduce the allowance to 2% in the context of the Budget settlement and then consult on the proposal for the removal of the provision altogether. The £6 million that the measure costs the public purse cannot be justified in these difficult financial times.

As with the business rates system, I want the domestic rating system to incentivise good behaviour. I have asked my officials to consider reopening the low-carbon new homes scheme and refashioning it as an energy efficiency incentive by providing an extended domestic rates holiday for the first occupants of new houses that meet the required standard, thus also helping our construction sector. That will need more research into standards and value for money, but that work is under way.

Finally but not insignificantly, I want to advance proposals to significantly reduce the landlord allowance paid to all landlords in the public and private sectors. It was the subject of consultation, and I intend to reduce it to 5%.

Today, I have outlined the immediate challenges. Beyond those, research is well under way into developing a levy on derelict properties. With the help of the councils, we have identified 1,800 problem properties, and I have commissioned the Economic Policy Centre at UU to provide us with independent policy advice. I recognise that there is a range of reasons for derelict properties lying vacant, and we need to be sensitive to those so that we do not hinder orderly development activity. However, if the policy is well designed and discerning, it would help to encourage the regeneration of and investment in our urban areas, areas that have become blighted by properties that are simply lying idle. It could also serve to increase the supply of development land for housing.

All in all, the changes that I have put forward today — the package — are driven by a need to increase the fairness of the system by ensuring that those who can contribute do so and that the tax burden is broadly shouldered. They also involve a better and more strategic targeting of reliefs to support social and economic development. Taken together, the measures will lead to a revenue gain for the Executive and our councils. Current estimates are up to £16 million a year recurring for the Executive, which is money that will help to deliver the Executive’s Programme for Government for all our citizens. Councils stand to gain by up to £10 million a year, which will help them to deliver better outcomes in local services, as well as their new role in place shaping, building communities and economic development.

Last month, I was asked by other parties in the Chamber when I would make hard decisions on rating matters: I trust that you will all agree these are hard issues that I am tackling today. The decisions that I make, however, will not be made alone. I have further consultations to undertake with the general public and the Finance Committee, and I will require the agreement of the Executive and the Assembly when the required legislation needs to be passed.

Leagann an pacáiste misniúil moltaí atá á nochtadh agam inniu bunús láidir síos le forbairt a dhéanamh ar chóras nua-aimseartha rátaí atá cothrom, a dhéanann athbheochan ar lárionaid ár gcathracha agus ár mbailte, a spreagann fás ar ár mórshráideanna agus a chuidíonn le rathúnas. The package of bold proposals that I have set out establishes a solid basis for developing a modern rates system that is fair, revitalises our city and town centres, spurs growth in our high streets and, indeed, supports prosperity.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement. This is our first sight of it, but there are some interesting and very sensible proposals. We will have to look at the numbers because there will be losers as well as winners, but I look forward to exploring that.

Briefly, I want to ask about lifting the domestic rates cap. As a social democrat, I support the concept of levying those most able to pay, although I would prefer it to be done through income tax. This will disproportionately affect people in my constituency, many of whom are on good but modest incomes and are paying for everything. What consideration has the Minister given to a package of convergence measures such as were put in place to address the position of those affected by a rates bump after local government reform?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for her question and for focusing on the two constituencies most affected by the removal of the rates cap: South Belfast, which I also have an interest in, and North Down. You will note that I talked about a phased introduction. I am very sensitive to the fact that, even if someone lives in a million-pound house, they also have to balance their books and their budget and no one wants to receive next April, for example, a dramatically increased rates bill. We are doing two things. First, we are saying that this is a levy, so it will not include 100% of the rates bill; it is only the 55% that we control as central government. That is the first relief to those in larger houses. Also, it is a phased introduction, and we will take our time to do it. I think it might happen over two rating periods over two years.

It is unfair that those who live in houses that are valued at £150,000 or £200,000 are subject to a regressive taxation system — property tax. I look forward to the day when I — or the Finance Minister who follows me — control income tax, but, until that day, we need to take decisions over the taxes and rates that we control. This decision is timely and will bring extra money into the coffers to deliver services not just in South Belfast and North Down but right across the jurisdiction. I look forward to getting the full support of all the parties in South Belfast, in particular, and North Down for the measure.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Belfast South)

I welcome the statement, although I echo the words of our fellow South Belfast MLA that some of it will create concern in the constituency, particularly around the domestic cap. We look forward to consulting on that and hearing the views.

As the Minister will be aware, the Committee is examining business rates and taking evidence on that. We will be out and about and intend to visit Portadown and Warrenpoint to see the situation on the ground. Will the Minister commit to coming before the Committee, specifically on the issue of rates, during the consultation to outline his thinking in more detail? In addition to that — the Minister referenced this in his statement — will he confirm clearly that this represents his thinking on the direction of rates reform and that he intends to bring all these proposals and any revised proposals following consultation back to the Executive for their agreement and decision?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Madam Chairwoman, thank you for your question. I know that you were able to come along this morning for a short briefing on the proposals. We need to nail our colours to the mast on the removal of the cap. We are either for it or against it, and we will then get into the discussion of how it will be administered.

I have had the experience in my constituency of politicians from another party rapping the doors of people who may be inclined to vote for me and telling them, "Don't vote for Máirtín Ó Muilleoir because he wants to remove the rates cap". I hope that that does not happen with this issue. I know that the Member has less association with the person involved in doing that than some people might think she has, but that happened. People need to nail their colours to the mast. I hope that the SDLP, in particular, in that light —

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order to ask the Minister —

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

No. I will take points of order at the end of the Minister's statement.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I hope that people will nail their colours to the mast, and I look forward to the day when the SDLP is not rapping doors in South Belfast and saying to people, "Oppose Máirtín Ó Muilleoir because he will remove the rates cap". I think that it is fair, and I say that to the Chairwoman of the Committee as well.

I look forward to the opportunity to go to my beloved Finance Committee to discuss business rates. I offered that the last time, but you will remember that my offer was spurned and we spent three hours talking about other matters. The offer stands, however, and I look forward to discussing these matters with the Finance Committee.

Again, we need to nail our colours to the mast. Do we agree with the evaluation carried out, which said that the existing scheme was too broad and diffuse and had not delivered any results? Do we then believe that it should be replaced with a targeted approach that is focused on small retail and hospitality that is linked to tourism? Let us be clear: these are the proposals of the Finance Minister, and they need the support of the Assembly. This is the ultimate authority on all the proposals that I lay out today. There will be a discussion, you can be sure, with the Finance Committee. There will be a discussion with the stakeholders — some of that has started already — and there will be a concerted effort by my team to win people over, and, where there are genuine concerns, we will want to address them.

There will be improvements. I have laid out the broad parameters here, but I have no doubt, from looking at some of the very wise and sage Members around here, there will be improvements on what I am proposing in the time ahead.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Before I move beyond South Belfast into another constituency, while, quite understandably, the focus will be on what rates we are raising, it is also worth noting that every £1 million extra that the Executive can raise is 30 extra teachers or 30 extra nurses. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the Minister is looking at proposals that will raise further revenue for the Executive.

I want to move to non-domestic rates. How will the vision that the Minister set out at the start of his statement impact on towns and villages across Upper Bann and other constituencies in making our towns and villages more attractive places for small businesses to do business?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for his question. I have had the pleasure, since my appointment, of visiting Lurgan and Banbridge. I have not been to Portadown, another large town in your constituency. In those town centres — and particularly, in fact, before my appointment, in Portadown — I have seen too many empty shops and too much dereliction on the high street. It is my intention that the measures that we introduce today, in concert with the business associations and with other Departments, particularly the Department for Communities, will lead to a turnaround. We did introduce what I refer to as the spray-and-pray approach, where everybody got some rates relief, in 2010, but now we are trying to have a more targeted approach. I think that we need to speak to the councils because this is clearly focused, for the first time ever, on a package of rates measures that focuses on hospitality, which, of course, is linked to tourism. For many years the Executive have been putting the focus on tourism, yet we have not joined up our thinking on rates. We are doing that now.

I say to Mr O'Dowd that it is my hope that this will be a spur for economic growth that will set us on a path of more prosperous town centres and more prosperous high streets. You will note, when we go through some of the detail, that it is my intention that, for this new targeted rates relief scheme and support scheme for retail and hospitality, there should be a higher net asset value (NAV) for the properties right up to £25,000. That will bring in many of the pubs, many of the cafes and many of the retail businesses in Portadown, Lurgan and Banbridge. It will probably not include them all — some of the bigger ones — but it widens the net considerably and gives people a real lift in the time ahead. I look forward to my invitation to go back to Banbridge, Lurgan, Portadown and other parts of your constituency, and I look forward to working with the business organisations, the councils and the other Departments to make sure that we all row in behind this idea to get the maximum lift from it.

Philip Smith (UUP, Strangford)

Thank you, Minister, for your statement. I look forward to studying this in more detail at the Finance Committee. I look forward to welcoming the Minister to the Committee again. Hopefully, it might be a little less entertaining and more insightful than his last visit. From his statement, it appears that this has yet to be agreed by the Executive. Did the Minister not consider replicating the Scottish or English model for non-domestic or business rates by removing all SMEs from rates below maybe £10,000 or £6,000 respectively, with tapers down to even higher levels?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for his question. I do not know whether my next appearance will be insightful or entertaining, but I am looking forward to getting back in. I know that the Finance Committee has a very busy agenda. The Member, and anyone who has served for longer on the Finance Committee, will know that there have been torturous attempts at some stages to try to really get to grips with this. How do you get the balance right? We need to raise rates to fund our services, but, at the same time, we do not want rates to be punitive and deter business. That is not always easy.

I have looked at the other models. In particular, you will know that in England last year they removed rates for properties below £10,000 NAV. I think that up to half a million businesses may have been involved in that, and they could fund that. We really cannot afford to give people 100% rate relief at that level. We do not have the rates base and the property base compared with the power of the south-east of England, the power of Heathrow Airport and the power of London. We do not have that rates base. What I am proposing here for the retail, hospitality and tourism link businesses that fit the criteria will make a real difference. I envisage those that have a NAV of less than £10,000 getting 50% off their rates, which is an increase on what was there previously and will make a real difference.

The Member and I start out on the same basis that we want to create a system that will really change the landscape for retail and hospitality. In these matters, we do not go to the Executive first and then have the Executive tell the Assembly what to do. I am coming to the Assembly. You are absolutely right that there has to be more detail. I have to go to the Committee. I have no doubt that I will be bidding for, and I am confident that I will receive, the support of Executive colleagues. However, we cannot put the cart before the horse. I think that we are going the right way about this.

Replicating what England did would blow a £60 million hole in our finances, and we just cannot afford to do that, but I am sympathetic to the businesses in smaller towns, some of which you represent. I have been in Comber, Dromore and places like that, where I see too many empty properties. This will make a real difference to retail and hospitality businesses in those areas.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I give credit to the Minister for setting out what is a very ambitious agenda. He talks about nailing colours to the mast on the issue of rates capping. If he checks through the Assembly and Executive voting record on this, he may discover that Sinn Féin is actually doing a U-turn. On the specific issue of business empowerment zones, given the current ongoing deadlock around the transfer of regeneration powers to councils, is there not a danger that the Executive are taking a very mixed, contradictory and incoherent approach to how we can best regenerate our towns, villages and cities across Northern Ireland?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for his question and for resisting the temptation to oppose removing the cap because, of course, along with mine, his is the other constituency that is really affected by the removal of the rates cap. I thought that it was really important to stop faffing around and to try to focus on actions that will result in better outcomes for our people. For some time now, I have been dismayed by the continuing levels of unemployment and poverty in some of the areas that we look at, especially in Belfast but also in some areas outside Belfast. It is particularly the case in the heart of east Belfast and the heart of west Belfast. At the same time, I have been heartened and buoyed by the renaissance that I see in both those areas. I mentioned that opening tonight is C S Lewis Square beside the EastSide Visitor Centre and the Connswater greenway and not so far from Ballyhackamore, which is doing very well, and Holywood Arches, which may be captured by this. I see great opportunity and great signs of revival.

I know that the Member would not like me to wait until we have all our ducks in a row before striking. In this case, I am striking and trying to send out a strong message that we can make a difference by using property taxes and rates. I believe that we can do that in west Belfast, in the Falls and right up the Newtownards Road, but it needs to be done with the cooperation of other Departments.

I am sure that you have seen it in your constituency. I do not know if Bangor has just adopted a business improvement district (BID) model, but I know that the BIDs are starting to make a difference in Newry, in its cathedral quarter and city centre. This, to a degree, is us taking the BID model and trying to partner west and east Belfast to make a real difference. I look forward to the Member's input in the time ahead, but, like him, I would rather not hang around. I would rather come forward with some bold proposals. Then, let us get them enacted. It is a pilot. If it does not work, we will do something else. However, at least we can hold our heads up and say, "We know that these two areas have not received the peace dividend that we would like them to have received, and, today, we are trying to make a real difference".

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

First of all, I suggest to the Minister that he is going to have trouble with his decision to scrap the cap on domestic rates. He also made a very significant comment in his statement. He said that he is abolishing the industrial derating of vacant factory premises. He will know that there are many factories in Northern Ireland where genuine attempts have been made to rent or sell the property but that for various reasons — sometimes the property is at an interface or the industry is simply not viable — it cannot be done. If the individual owner of that property can show that he or she has made every attempt to sell or rent the property, will they still have a large rate bill landing on their desk?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for his question. I do not know whether he was wishing me well, giving me his best wishes or issuing just a word of caution around removing the rate cap.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

It was a warning.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

He was giving me a warning, but I travel in hope and with some confidence. In relation to the issue of empty factories, you are absolutely right: it is a conundrum. We have stepped back and presumed that if a factory is empty, there is nothing we can do about it. Then a case was brought forward by the CEO of the Fermanagh and Omagh District Council relating to a derelict factory. It was the opinion in that case and in others that, in fact, the realisation of a landlord that there is no penalty at all in having a factory sitting empty does not encourage movement or action, but it is difficult.

The Member will have heard, at the end of my statement, reference to a tax on derelict land. That has the same difficulties. Sometimes, people say to me, "I am sitting on derelict land; it is not that I do not want to sell it, I just cannot get a buyer for it". The issue is not without complexity or challenges, but I urge the Member to move forward with an open mind. If we could prove to him that introducing a tax or rates on empty factories would help to convert them into productive assets, I hope that we would then get his support. We have a fair bit of evidence gathering to do before he comes to that decision, but I hope that he will proceed with an open mind as we negotiate these issues.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he outline how these proposals will benefit councils?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat as an cheist. I thank the Member for his question. The House knows that I am an advocate for local councils and for increased powers for them, a fact that has been in the news recently. I believe that they are great partners. There are now 11 ambitious councils with very strong growth plans for the future. When the measures are implemented, they will immediately create a nice little windfall for councils. They will benefit by an extra £10 million, which perhaps they will use to borrow additional money, improve services or invest in their council areas. Think of the money that Belfast City Council spends on the Visit Belfast Welcome Centre. I know that, similarly, there are plans for the relocation of the Visitor Information Centre in Derry. Belfast City Council puts money into its convention centre, the Waterfront Hall and other facilities. Those are really focused on tourism and trying to grow the economy by bringing in visitors. Now we say to them, with the new rate relief measures, that we are also focused on hospitality.

I will mention one other measure announced today, and that is about trying to convert some retail premises into accommodation. It still pains me to walk through Belfast city centre, in particular, and to see premises above shops that are not used, are just empty, and in which people could live. Also, in some of our towns and villages, there are retail spaces that are not coming back, and they, too, could be converted into accommodation to help people live in town or village centres and, in the case of Belfast, the city centre. I think that those are big benefits to the councils, but we can magnify and multiply them if councils work closely with us as we implement those measures.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for the statement he has made. I very much welcome the review of non-domestic rates for businesses. A boost to local businesses, particularly small businesses, is vital. Has the Minister been in touch with and liaised with Belfast City Council, the chamber of commerce in Belfast and traders' associations, particularly around the two pilot schemes that he mentioned on small-business empowerment zones. I must say to the House that I am concerned that there is a zone in east Belfast, which runs from the foot of the Newtownards Road to the Holywood Arches, and one in west Belfast, which runs from Castle Street in the city centre the whole length of the Falls Road to the bottom of the Whiterock Road. That is hardly fair or equitable, and the outcomes cannot be compared.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for his question, and I take on board the point he makes. It is a pilot scheme, so let us see whether it has a dramatic impact on both those areas. I know that neither scheme is in your constituency. If they work, I wish to try a rural pilot. How can we get out into the villages and towns, particularly the villages? I was speaking to Kilkeel Harbour Works on Thursday night. How can we do more work in the small coastal towns and villages?

I urge the Member, as difficult as this may be, to approach it with an open mind and a good heart. Let us see where the advantages are. If there are advantages for west and east Belfast, and we learn lessons, let us roll out those advantages in north Belfast, and, Heaven forbid, we might even roll them out in south Belfast as well.

Danny Kennedy (Deputy Speaker, Newry and Armagh)

Will the Minister return to the issue of the proposed rating of empty factories and provide clarification on the size of factory and whether his proposals will include industrial units? The Minister will know that many business and factory owners also own vacant units that they hope to develop at some point, subject to opportunities being provided for them. Could the imposition of rating charges on such units serve as a negative to owners and reduce their ability to provide employment opportunities?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for his question. I go back to a word that he uses: opportunities. I see this as an opportunity. We have to proceed with care. As I said in the introduction to my statement, we want to encourage and spur economic growth, and we want to discourage dereliction, but that needs to be handled carefully. Of course, empty business units are already liable for empty property rates — 50% of rates. Thus far, we have not got it right. I have visited too many places where I see empty factories that have effectively been abandoned because there is no onus on anyone to try to sort out the problem. With the Member's support and help, we will tease our way through this. Together, we can seize opportunities, and one of those opportunities is to bring back into productive use the empty factories that I see across the landscape.

Catherine Seeley (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Minister has touched on this a little, but will he detail how he hopes today's measures will encourage tourism?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for her question. It is a fact that the Minister for the Economy has been working assiduously over recent months on a new tourism strategy. It is a matter of fact that the Executive have invested very strongly in our tourism infrastructure. All parties, I think, have agreed to that. Think of the Gobbins, the Peace Bridge — also a piece of tourism infrastructure — or Titanic Belfast. We have made tourism the jewel in the crown of our proposition as a region, yet, at the same time, we have not joined that up with rates policy.

When I was in Ballycastle recently, I saw at least two closed-up pubs. I travel to other areas. There has been a big decline in the number of pubs in recent years, for a number of reasons, which include the changing habits of people. I would like to see the tourists who come here to follow the 'Game of Thrones' tour, for example, and who end up in Ardglass or north Antrim be served by the people who want to open cafes, restaurants, pubs or other premises, and whom we have encouraged to do so. I saw that when I visited Portrush at the invitation of Minister Givan. Down on the harbour, we had the pleasure of seeing a small cafe called Babushka, where we met 10 Chinese bloggers who were in having fish for their breakfast. They were enjoying breakfast and blogging about the wonders of that part of the world. We are trying to join up our thinking. We know that tourism is important, but now we are giving an added incentive and lift to those who have taken a risk and set up businesses in the hospitality sector.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

How does the Minister plan to address the legitimate concerns that some of us have that, far from being a fair system that supports prosperity, it is a system in which he is penalising some small businesses to the benefit of others? They all contribute to the economy and all employ people. How does he propose to define "retail"?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for her question. I suppose it goes back to the basis of our new thinking. In 2010, we introduced a small business rate relief scheme. That was helpful to many small businesses, and I am sure that many of us know the owners of small businesses. We will be six, seven or perhaps eight years on when — I hope — we introduce our new measures, and it is time for a more targeted approach.

In other places where they have had to designate businesses as "retail" or "other", they have found a way to do it, and I am confident that we will be the same. Offices will lose out, and they are important. Therefore, having supported for seven years an average payment of £700, we are moving on to a system where we will target our resources elsewhere. I am going to spend more money: the last small business rate relief scheme cost around £18 million, and I intend to spend £22 million on this.

There is a lot of work for Land and Property Services (LPS) to make calls on. I have not made them, but I am sure that, in consultation with the Committee, we will make calls on dog-grooming services, hairdressers and so on. How do they differentiate from a payday lender? Is that someone whom we wish to allow into the scheme? I would not wish to see that.

There is a lot of work to be done. It will not lead to any decrease in activity on the high street; it will lead to an increase. I am very happy to look with all stakeholders, including Members, at how we define retail and hospitality businesses and differentiate them from other businesses that have benefited over the past six years and got a nice little lift from us to make sure that they survive these times.

Gerry Mullan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I was glad to note that in your statement, Minister, you recognise the valuable contribution that charity shops make to our society by attracting shoppers onto our high streets and through the very valuable work that they do to support the most marginalised and most vulnerable in society. You intend to carry out further consultations on the matter. Can you give me an idea of what kind of consultations you have carried out and what length of consultations you intend to carry out? This is a very big issue for charity shops in my area.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank the Member. The Member has brought this issue up before. We will move into consultation on all these measures rapidly. On many of the issues, I hope to move into consultation before Christmas.

We will not take anything forward before we thrash it out among ourselves. Do I believe that charity shops could pay 10%? I do, but I am happy to be informed by Members. As you know, the rate is 20% in Wales, Scotland and England, and it should not be any more than that. However, I believe that we have to stop the proliferation of such shops. We have just over 350 of them; I think that we are OK where we are, and I certainly do not want to see more. Could they make a small contribution of £15 a week? Yes, they could. However, I am happy to discuss that with yourself and see where it goes.

Another little idea that the Member will be interested in is whether we could use that money with the third sector, the charity sector, to encourage social or third-sector entrepreneurship. People are trying to find other ways of raising money for voluntary groups and charities. That is my preference, although only a small amount of money would be raised through it.

When we went out to consultation on the small business rate relief scheme, businesspeople had a principle that everybody should pay something, which I agree with. So, if you are on the high street, you should pay something. That is my opinion; it does not have to be an awful lot, but, in principle, everybody should pay something.

The last thing that I say to the Member, although it does not affect his constituency, is that an issue that we could tackle is that of higher-value units being let to charities — say a unit with an annual rent of £100,000 — thereby allowing landlords to dodge responsibility for paying empty property rates. There is much more sympathy for the towns and villages where charity shops are a key part of the mix.

I look forward to working with you. There will be plenty of opportunity through the Committee, the Assembly and the consultation to make views heard. It was a vigorous debate the last time, and I am sure that it will be again.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement and his answers so far. Following on from the previous question, the Minister has highlighted a direction of travel in respect of charity shops that would see a reduction in the exemption to 90%. I fully understand the need to have a balance, in our town centres in particular. I am thinking of the likes of Antrim in south Antrim. Just for clarity, will the Minister be consulting with the charity sector to include their views in any consultation?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I could go further than that: not only will we be consulting with them but I can assure you that we cannot do this without the support of Members. That is where I am minded to go. I will be informed by the consultation but it will be the Members of the House who will decide whether we should introduce any rates for high street charities.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his statement. It is encouraging to hear a Minister saying he is going to stop faffing around and take some hard decisions, so I welcome that.

I am still on charity shops, Minister. Is the Minister minded, as part of the consultation, to examine what constitutes a charity shop? I have no wish to put the boot into them but some of the current charity shops are acting in direct competition with fully fledged shops that are paying fully fledged rates. The Minister talks about balance and a constructive approach but I question, in terms of procurement of stock and the way they operate, whether some of them are actually what was meant to be a charity shop at the beginning of all this.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Thank you. Yes, we do need to look at that. It needs to be a fair system.

I have just noticed that we have a large group in — from Cullybackey, I think — the guests of Robin Swann. I hope that this is going to help villages as well.

I know that in Lisburn charity shops are part of the mix. I also know that it is the opinion of the charity sector leaders and businesses I meet that they should not be competing directly by selling new retail items from their shops. We need to get the balance right. If someone is paying full rates next door to a charity shop then it is our understanding that the charity shop should be selling goods that are not in direct competition. I think that it breaches the spirit of what we are trying to do with charity shops.

Let us look at it as we move forward. We should not exaggerate it either, Trevor. I am not sure that 10% is a stern or tough action but it is a positive one in that we are saying, "Look, you're occupying a productive asset and we think you should make a contribution".

I have one last point: there are unscrupulous landlords who dodge the empty property rate by putting a charity into the shop, but they do not reduce the rent by one penny. I am amazed at charities across this town that are paying full price for the properties they occupy. I always thought that the landlords made people a deal. In fact, what they do is that he or she dodges the 50% empty property rate and then makes sure that charities, which are sometimes maybe not as ruthless in negotiating as some others might be, pay the absolute full rent. For me, that also breaches the spirit of what we are trying to do.

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

There are many good things in this statement: the use of pilots; the proposal in respect of energy efficient new homes; the tourism and hospitality interventions; and other things.

Does the Minister not have two concerns? The first is that if a decision is made in the near future that regeneration powers are not to be transferred to councils, then the rug would be pulled from under his feet with regard to his high street interventions, of which there are a number.

Secondly, does he have a concern that the DUP flagged up clearly this morning that when it comes to some, at least, of what he is proposing, he does not have political cover from them?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I am not going to speak for the SDLP. I am certainly not going to speak for the DUP either this morning. I am going to take and bank the positive comments at the start of that statement about the elements of this that you like.

I am with you in terms of regeneration powers for councils. At the same time, and I know you will see this as well, I am buoyed by the attitude of councils, which, as you know, do feel hamstrung. You heard Gerry Millar, of Belfast City Council, saying in a radio piece last week that additional regeneration powers would help them to do more.

I do not see their hands being completely tied. I see them still trying to do things. I admire the leadership of John Kelpie of Derry City and Strabane District Council, Suzanne Wylie at Belfast City Council and their colleagues in Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council or from other areas who have been in touch with me.

I hope that this will empower them while we wait, as Trevor Lunn said, for Government — while we wait for Godot. At the same time, it will empower the councils to partner us in the time ahead, and it will empower businesses. The Member will know that, despite the challenges, the BIDS went ahead: the Cathedral Quarter voted for a BID, as did Belfast One. As you know, they have much more ambitious plans and hopes for the devolution of power to cities, but they did not sit on their hands. I hope that he will support us in moving positively ahead while we await further improvements.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

As a Member from the other constituency that is greatly affected by the proposal, I unequivocally welcome the removal of the rates cap. I have long argued that it is not fair that my constituents in the Kilcooley Estate subsidise the rates of those who own estates in Cultra. The Minister said that he is confident in going forward with his proposals. Given the position of other parties on this issue in the past, what evidence does he have for his confidence that he will get political support from the DUP for this positive move?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

You are the second person who wants me to join and speak for the DUP. I am very confident that we will get this entire package through, and it is a package; it should not be seen as doing something around low-carbon or zero-carbon homes. That should never have been stopped, Mr Agnew, and we are trying to bring it back. It is not only about the conundrum of empty factories or increased help for hospitality. It is a package, and the cap is part of it. I am confident that all of the measures outlined today will go through and be passed by the Assembly. Will they be tweaked? Will there be, maybe from you, better ideas of how we can do them? I am open to and would welcome that. I am confident that this package of measures will, as a package, be endorsed by the Assembly in the time ahead.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I bring the Minister back to the small business empowerment zones and express my disappointment that his approach to pilots is so Belfast-centric. There is not a single rural town included, and, although the issues may be slightly different, the pilot may be beneficial there, too. I think of a town like Ballymoney, which has been ravaged by dereliction. What does a small business empowerment zone actually mean? There is no substance here about it. Is it rates exemption? Will he clarify that? On rural issues, will he confirm that he is not minded to disturb agricultural rates? Can that be taken as a given?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I will take the third question first. Yes, there will be no change to the agricultural rate reliefs.

Mr Allister, if you would like to bring suggestions about rural areas to Mr Brian McClure at my Department, I would welcome that. Responsibility for rural areas lies with another Minister, with whom I have discussed this. It would be nice to have another pilot for rural areas outside Belfast. We may do so in the time ahead. This was the bite of the issue that we could take at this time. I mentioned the need to do something for smaller towns and villages, although I was not thinking of places as big as Ballymoney; I was thinking of some of the small coastal villages and towns, for example. If you have any suggestions on that, please bring them forward. You should not think that because we have one pilot, we cannot have another.

I envisage a rates empowerment zone as being somewhere where, for example, the pioneers and champions of the EastSide Partnership, EastSide Arts, will tonight open C S Lewis Square. They could go to a potential investor and say, "We now have special status under the rates system, so, if you have a new business here, you would get 50% rate relief. Instead of paying 100%, you would pay 50%".

This is for at least three years, perhaps five, so there is a bit of certainty and a reason to attract someone to the area. However, it is also for existing businesses: we need them to expand and invest more. We want to transform the area in which they are based. It does not work by passing legislation alone; it does work by having, for example, a full-time worker who, like the chair or chief executive of a BID, goes out and sells the advantages of an area and works out the best strategy to build on this. It is another tool in the toolbox, for example, for the EastSide Partnership, the West Belfast Partnership, Féile an Phobail in west Belfast, EastSide Arts and other groups. I hope that, in that context, we will move swiftly into discussions with some of the other Departments and the council about how they can come in behind this idea.

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

Cuirim fáilte roimh an ráiteas. I welcome the statement and, if the Minister is looking for a rural town for the scheme, Warrenpoint will be very open to having it. Will he outline in more detail his interesting proposal to enable companies to access rate relief by accrediting with the Living Wage Foundation? In all this, workers' rights are very important.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat as an cheist. Thug mé cuairt ar Rinn Mhic Giolla Rua ar na mallaibh. Tá súil agam go mbeidh mé arais, le dea-scéala más féidir, ach tá súil agam go gcuideoidh seo leis an cheantar. I have been to Warrenpoint at the invitation of the Member, and I believe that, like all the other towns, villages and cities, this would benefit Warrenpoint, especially now that it is trying to focus more on tourism in the time ahead.

I know that I am trying your patience, Mr Speaker, because I have been on my feet too long, but a really major change in the new rate relief proposals is that people have to apply. Previously, under the spray-and-pray approach, we just said that every business under a certain NAV would get relief. We are now saying that it is targeted at small retail and hospitality, but, as well as that, you have to apply. It is a very simple application process, but you have to prove that you have made an investment in your business. If your rate relief is £1,000, you need to show us that you spent £1,000 on new equipment and skills training, and you employed more staff. We want to make it online-only and really simple, but, for the first time, you will have to ask for the rate relief. In my mind, that is a sea change because people will now understand that they are earning something and are entitled to it, but they have to ask for it.

In my view, another way for a business to be entitled to the new business rate relief system is for it to be accredited with the Living Wage Foundation, which accredits businesses. The new living wage is £8·45, but businesses that pay that can have the proud boast that they are Living Wage Foundation companies. If any small business in retail or hospitality can say to us, "I won this accreditation", that, for me, would be enough to entitle it to ask for and receive rate relief. I hope that that encourages more companies to look seriously at how they can increase the money that they pay their staff. Of course, when you have added investment in staff, you will demand more productivity, but all that moves people up the business and job value chain. My officials will be speaking to the Living Wage Foundation people today, and this relationship can only benefit businesses and employees in the time ahead.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

There are a number of very positive things in the statement, and the manufacturing industry will be hugely pleased — rightly so — with the nature of the maintenance of industrial derating. There will be interest in the use of the rates system to encourage regeneration, investment and entrepreneurship. What measures and time frame can we use to check whether this statement matches up to the outcomes? What targets can we use in an outcomes-based approach, and when can we look back to see how well we are doing at using the rates system for regeneration, investment and entrepreneurship?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

That is a fair question. As you know, we really did not do that with the last scheme, but that was in the mouth and the maw of a terrible economic crisis. With this scheme, it maybe needs to evaluated every two years, but certainly no longer than that. I think that you will agree, as a former Minister for the Economy, that Neil Gibson's Economic Policy Centre does good work. We are happy with the work that it does. As I said, we are commissioning in other areas, and I would be very happy if it is the body that is commissioned.

We cannot rely on anecdotal evidence and need to assess whether this is working. If it is not working, we need to do something else. I am confident that it will work. As you know, some stakeholders are very supportive and some are not so supportive, but we need to get it right, and, if we do not have the evidence, we will not really know what we are doing. I am happy to work through with the Member how we gather evidence; how we decide whether it is having the desired effect; how we can ensure that it does not have effects that we do not want; and how we can augment and enhance what is working well for us and abandon things that are not working.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I take him back to page 4, on halls of residence. There is only one very small hall of residence in my constituency, at Queen's University marine biology station. What impact will the change have on the hard work being done to attract external students to Belfast? The change may make Belfast a bit more expensive. It will also make it more expensive for rural dwellers who want to send their children to halls of residence or are themselves students. Will it have a negative impact on places like the Holylands?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for her question. No, I do not think that it will have a detrimental effect on the valiant efforts of our universities to attract people from outside this jurisdiction to study here; it will make the system fairer. Other students who live away from home pay rates in other types of accommodation that are almost like halls of residence — we see those springing up across the city. It is a small change to the system. We consulted on it. I think it is time. I have not yet spoken to my dear friends in the University of Ulster or Queen's University, but they have strong cases to make on overall funding, and I am listening to that very carefully. I do not think that this will make any difference to their efforts to attract students. All we are doing is making the system more equitable.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

In the early part of his statement, the Minister said:

"Today, I propose a groundbreaking package of measures aimed at modernising the domestic and commercial elements of the rating system".

He then proceeded to outline a list of fairly punitive measures against those who pay their rates: has he anything new to say about those who do not?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Lord Morrow, you have to read past the first few pages. Much of the statement is about people who do not pay their rates, including landlords who pay 50% empty property rates, which will go up to 75% — still way off where Scotland is. That will make a difference. It involves those who do not pay rates on empty factories; we are trying to get that right as well. They will add to the tax base. Through many of the things that we are doing we are trying to bring in more money, not just for Fermanagh and Omagh District Council but for all councils and for government coffers. Of course, we have just spent the best part of 30 minutes discussing the big one: the people who are not paying at the minute are those who enjoy the domestic property cap, and that is going as well. There is no doubt that some people who heretofore did not make as much of a contribution as they should will have to shoulder more of the burden, because we are making the system fairer in the time ahead.

I am always up for listening to other proposals on how to raise more rates. As you know, there was a bit of a love-in when we removed rates entirely from community amateur sports clubs and extended that to pigeon clubs. Everybody is in favour of removing rates, but, if Lord Morrow has other proposals around how we might bring forward other measures to raise rates, I am certainly all ears. Make no mistake: when we finish the exercise, with the support of the House, there will be £16 million recurring each year more in government coffers and £10 million more in council coffers.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

That concludes questions on the Minister's statement.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister, when the DUP publicly responds to say that he does not have its support — ironically, when my party was acknowledging its broad sympathy — to deflect his anger by making allegations against other parties and presenting tittle-tattle as fact? If he insists on taking his frustrations with the DUP out on others, would it not be better that, rather than making allegations, he named names and presented evidence?

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I do not think that is a point of order. The Speaker has no role in adjudicating on Members' —

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

On a point of order, I am happy to name Dr McDonnell and Declan Boyle as going around doors —

[Interruption.]

I can bring the evidence as well.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Minister, the Speaker has no role in adjudicating on Members' or Ministers' remarks, but the Member has placed her concerns on the record.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 regarding the twenty-sixth North/South Ministerial Council agriculture meeting, which was held in Armagh on Wednesday 26 October 2016. Chris Hazzard MLA, Minister for Infrastructure, and I represented the Northern Ireland Executive at the meeting. The Irish Government were represented by Michael Creed TD, Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and Michael Ring TD, Minister of State, Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. Minister Creed chaired the meeting. This statement has been agreed with Minister Hazzard, and I make it on behalf of both of us.

Ministers discussed the implications of the result of the recent UK referendum on EU membership. They noted that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM), the Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) had undertaken an initial scoping exercise to assess the impact of the UK decision.

The Council welcomed the ongoing collaboration between DAERA and DAFM aimed at maximising the drawdown of EU funding under Horizon 2020 for the agriculture, forestry, food and marine sectors and the bioeconomy and the €26 million secured in funding to date by successful applications from both jurisdictions. Ministers noted the progress made in funding projects in both jurisdictions under the DAFM national competitive call and the extension of the United States-Ireland research and development partnership to include agriculture research themes.

The Council noted the ongoing progress made by DAERA and DAFM on the implementation of the common agricultural policy (CAP) reforms agreed in 2013 and the up-to-date situation with regard to the implementation of the rural development programmes. Ministers also noted the potential implications for future CAP funding of the result of the UK's decision to leave the EU and the determination of Departments to implement European Commission proposals for CAP simplification and push for further simplification where appropriate.

The Council noted the current position with regard to the ongoing difficulties being experienced in agricultural markets, the associated measures introduced to address those difficulties and the continuing close contact between officials from DAERA and DAFM on a range of issues, including CAP reform implementation issues and the impact that the UK decision to leave the EU will have on the agri-food and fisheries sectors in both jurisdictions.

The Council welcomed the continuing work on the delivery of the all-island animal health and welfare strategy action plan since the last North/South Ministerial Council agriculture meeting on 20 January 2016 and, in the context of the recent UK referendum, looked forward to the continuation of practical and effective cooperation on animal health and welfare and disease control in both jurisdictions in order that the health and welfare of livestock is maintained at the highest level.

Key points noted included the introduction of a mandatory bovine viral diarrhoea eradication programme by DAERA on 1 March 2016, similar to that introduced by DAFM in 2013; that, on 29 September 2016, the Executive agreed the recommendation for DAERA to submit an application to the World Organisation for Animal Health for BSE negligible risk status for Northern Ireland — the application has been submitted and the decision will be taken in May 2017; that agreement was reached at a meeting of the North/South disease control and trade working group in March 2016 on ways to enhance trade between the two jurisdictions, in particular agreement on how to streamline the health certification processes for deer and pigs being moved to Northern Ireland for slaughter; that a shared contract for the emergency supply of carbon dioxide for whole-house gassing of poultry has been in place since June 2016 and will be valid for three years; and that a memorandum of understanding for sharing livestock culling teams in the event of an exotic disease outbreak in either jurisdiction was signed by Chief Veterinary Officers in June 2016.

The Council noted the progress made with the review of the all-Ireland Chalara control strategy by officials from DAERA and DAFM in response to ongoing scientific and surveillance evidence; the research being undertaken to develop a population of Irish planting stock tolerant to the Chalara — ash dieback — disease; and the ongoing commitment to continue to work towards the shared objective of achieving and maintaining good plant health status on the island. Ministers welcomed the continued cross-border cooperation in dealing with tree and plant health and the shared approach to regulation, as evidenced through a common approach to Epitrix, which is the potato flea beetle, risk management. Ministers welcomed the joint approach to the continued sharing of science and diagnostic capability and the regulation of the use of pesticides.

The Council welcomed the continuing cooperation between both jurisdictions, the ongoing work to improve farm safety and the agreement between the Health and Safety Authority and the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland on the joint development of farm-safety e-learning packages. Ministers welcomed the success achieved in raising public awareness of the inherent health-and-safety dangers on farms during the international farm safety week 2016 and the forthcoming tripartite meeting of the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland, the Health and Safety Authority and the Health and Safety Executive of Great Britain to discuss farm safety that will take place on 1 December 2016.

The Council welcomed the good progress made in both jurisdictions in implementing the LEADER element of the rural development programme. DAERA and the Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs organised a LEADER cooperation event, held in Newry on 8 and 9 November 2016, to launch cooperation between local action groups from all regions of the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Ministers also welcomed the opening of a new social farming capital grant scheme in Northern Ireland to complement the existing support office in Cookstown. They also noted progress made on the Commission for the Economic Development of Rural Areas funded social farming grant scheme and the Republic of Ireland's new town and village scheme, and they agreed that officials should explore opportunities to share experience gained from initiatives aimed at sustaining rural settlements.

The Council agreed to hold the next agriculture meeting in the spring of 2017.

Harold McKee (UUP, South Down)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Will she provide an update on what she is doing to reverse the recent ruling that has barred boats from Northern Ireland from fishing inside the six-mile limit of the Republic of Ireland? Surprisingly, it was not a topic at the sectoral meeting.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. I did not quite catch the last part of it, but the Supreme Court ruling in the Republic in the last few weeks that upheld the appeal came as something of a surprise. I have spoken to the Minister responsible — Michael Creed — on a number of occasions in the last two weeks to determine what will be done to correct that.

The Member will be aware that it is based on the Voisinage Agreement, which dates back to 1964. That was a written agreement between officials with regards to fishermen from the Irish Republic fishing in Northern Ireland waters and Northern Ireland fishermen being able to fish in waters around the Irish Republic to a six-mile limit. It has been in standing for a long time. Obviously, it is recognised in the European Union as a long-standing agreement. It is quite lucrative for our fishermen; not being able to fish in those waters could cost them somewhere in the region of £300,000. It is of concern to me. My understanding is that Minister Creed is currently getting legislation drafted — it needs to be underpinned by legislation in the Oireachtas — and he is hopeful that it will make its way through the various procedures early in the new year. I am keeping in regular contact with him in that regard. Obviously, I hope that that will correct the issue. In addition, I have spoken to George Eustice, the Minister of State in DEFRA, on the further implications that that will have.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The meeting noted that measures are being introduced to deal with market difficulties. Will the Minister tell us when we will know what is happening with the €4·8 million aid package and whether she is minded to match-fund it, as other regions are doing?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for her question. The aid package translates to just over £4 million for Northern Ireland. It is very welcome, as we lobbied to get a greater proportion of the allocation of moneys from the package.

You will be aware from previous comments that I have made that I want to maximise the impact of the money. I want to get it out as quickly as possible to farmers and also get the best value from it, as I want it to make a meaningful difference to the industry. Within the next number of days, I plan to make available the information on the schemes that I am funding. I appreciate that there have been calls for match funding, although not all regions are match-funding it, as the Member will be aware. She will also know that I do not have a surplus in my budget at present to match-fund. It is something on which I will have to have further discussions with the Finance Minister, but, at this stage, I do not have the money. The Member will also know from discussions in farming circles that farmers have not quite been united on how the money should be disseminated. I plan to let the Member know in the next number of days how I plan to go forward with this.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for her statement. The UK referendum result has an implication for farmers in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Does she agree that, in the event of a hard Brexit, farmers in the Irish Republic could be badly affected?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. Indeed, a hard Brexit and a hard border would not help either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland with trading. The Republic of Ireland exports a considerable amount of goods to Northern Ireland in a year. The figures for 2015 indicate that exports were worth almost £750 million. Likewise, €569 million of goods were exported from Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic.

There are issues for both sides. The Member will be aware that 29% of the raw milk produced in Northern Ireland is processed in the Irish Republic; that 39% of live lambs produced in Northern Ireland are exported to the Irish Republic; and that 31% of all pigs that are slaughtered in Northern Ireland come from the Irish Republic. At the moment, it is an issue that is much greater for the Irish Republic than it is for us. Currency movements are 15% less competitive for the Irish Republic, so it is in its best interests to be able to retain what is a particularly lucrative market within the United Kingdom. Therefore, a hard Brexit will be very difficult for the Irish Republic, as it will be for Northern Ireland.

Patsy McGlone (Deputy Speaker, Mid Ulster)

To broaden the theme of the previous question, officials have been ensuring that there is close contact on both sides. It is paramount that that continue. Will the Minister provide us with any detail of specific items of work that officials on both sides have been commissioned to start as a result of the NSMC meeting?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. He will be aware that I keep in regular contact with the Minister in the Irish Republic. We speak regularly on a number of issues, be they to do with agriculture or fisheries. The specific piece of work that is being carried out is a scoping exercise that will be looking at trade, fisheries, animal health standards, food standards and plant health standards. All those issues are part of the day-to-day work that officials carry out anyway, but there will be particular scoping done to determine the implications that the referendum result will have.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her statement. I notice that in three separate paragraphs she refers to the potential implications flowing from the EU referendum in the UK. Given that we are now four months on from that referendum and given the points that she has just made in response to Mr Irwin about an integrated agri-food business across this island, is it not time that we had a bit more detail rather than merely being told that Ministers have discussed the issue? Should the Council not be meeting before next March to deal with these urgent issues on behalf of farmers North and South?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. He will be aware that I regularly meet my counterpart in the Irish Republic and that my officials meet regularly to discuss issues of mutual interest, sometimes daily depending on the issue, and that will continue. There will be a Council meeting when we believe that it is necessary, and if we need to have an additional Council meeting we will do so.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for her statement. I will not be asking a question about Brexit. She mentioned animal health and welfare in paragraph 9 of the statement. Will she give us an update on the bovine viral diarrhoea (BVD) eradication programme in Northern Ireland?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. A mandatory eradication programme was brought in on 1 March 2016 similar to that which was introduced by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in 2013. Its aim is to control, and ultimately eradicate, BVD in Northern Ireland. It is an industry-led scheme operated by Animal Health and Welfare Northern Ireland (AHWNI) in support of the industry's action to eradicate BVD. The Department provided funding of £219,000 to assist with start-up costs, and my officials have worked very closely with AHWNI to facilitate the introduction and implementation of the tag-and-test legislation. We continue to liaise with AHWNI and the industry to bring forward phase 2 of the legislation when the monitoring requirements and necessary IT systems have been developed.

The most up-to-date figures that I have are that somewhere in the region of 335,000 calves had been tagged and tested by the end of September and that there was a positive test rate of 0·73%. AHWNI has surpassed its target for tests being returned within seven days, which has been helpful to the industry. We are looking to the future, and it is likely that phase 2 of the legislation will cover herd monitoring and more rigorous movement and enforcement controls.

BVD eradication programmes are in operation not only in the Republic of Ireland but in Scotland, our two main trading partners. The test is intended to help to increase our competitiveness here and to improve our efficiency at farm level. We are hopeful of positive results.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

I am pleased to see that there was a discussion about farm safety at the meeting. Did Ministers give consideration to making IT packages more available to the farming community? I am looking at the farm business scheme that has just been launched here. It is a matter of deep regret that IT is one of the ineligible items when you consider that anyone who goes online to apply gets 12 extra marks. Will you look at changing that to allow IT packages to become part of the grant scheme?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question, although I am a little bit confused by it. I know that there is an e-learning package, which is being developed in collaboration with the Republic of Ireland. Farm safety is vital for all of us and is something that I take very much to heart. Any death on a farm is one too many and it is something we really need to focus our minds on.

I am committed to the safety of our farmers, their families and their employees. We are working very closely with the Farm Safety Partnership to maximise our impact. The Stop and Think SAFE campaign is a really hard-hitting advertisement, which we are investing heavily in.

We are looking at online tools, and you highlighted our Making it Safer tool which is associated with the farm business improvement scheme. While all applicants have to complete that form, and it is about raising awareness of what they do on their farm, we are encouraging others who are not applying for that scheme to also go through that assessment, and it is to focus their minds on the risks that, perhaps, they are taking on their farm.

You will also know that as part of the rural development programme, through the business development groups and the farm family key skills, this is an integral part of not only the discussion but the training that we are moving forward with. We cannot emphasise enough to farmers the need for them to assess risks and to be aware of the dangers around them.

Danny Kennedy (Deputy Speaker, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the statement by the Minister. I ask the Minister whether, at the sectoral meeting, there was any discussion on cross-border rural crime, which is very prevalent in my constituency and with criminal gangs travelling up from the Irish Republic to wreak havoc on rural communities. Will the Minister undertake to have this matter placed on a future agenda and seek input from the respective Justice Ministers to address this important issue?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. I do know that it is an issue of concern for the Member. It was not on the agenda for this meeting but I will undertake to do as the Member has suggested for the next meeting.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

With reference to paragraph 14, I welcome the LEADER cooperation event that took place and the opportunities to discuss cross-border projects in the rural development programme. Can the Minister provide an update on the event and outline what steps her Department will be taking to facilitate the process of cross-border applications?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for her question. The event was attended by around 120 participants. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend as I was out of the country at that time and sent my apologies. Obviously, it is very much about cooperation and assistance and, where there are issues of mutual benefit, it is important to encourage that.

I will do all I can to work with groups. Obviously, the LEADER element in Northern Ireland has been very successful to date. We have had in the region of 229 applications, which amounts to somewhere in the region of £8 million worth of grant which is being sought, and that work is continuing very positively. We will work to assist where we can to make things easier for applicants.

Gerry Mullan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Can the Minister give further clarification about the e-learning packages that she has advocated and what form they may take?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. At this stage, I do not have any other information. This is being developed by the health and safety executives in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Once I get the information, I will be happy to share it with the Member.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I welcome the Minister's recognition of the very severe consequences of a hard Brexit, both for the Republic of Ireland and also for farmers and agri-food in Northern Ireland. Given the very high levels of integration in the agri-food economy across the island that have developed over the last 40 years, does the Minister believe that whatever outcome emerges from Brexit, that we have to ensure that the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland remain part of the same market system for agri-food, otherwise we are going to see massive diseconomies of scale, inefficiencies and a loss of prosperity in both parts of the island?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. Obviously, he will be aware that we are very cognisant of the unique situation that Northern Ireland has in having a border with a member of the European Union and what that will look like going forward. That has been raised at various levels. It has been recognised in ongoing discussions with those in the Republic of Ireland and Westminster and very much highlighted by the industry itself. My concern is very much around Northern Ireland going forward and making sure that the industry in Northern Ireland is best placed.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

At the meeting or elsewhere, did the Minister encounter any recognition by the Republic of Ireland that, if they were to permit the EU to erect a hard border — it will be their choice — by the imposition of average CAP tariffs of up to 18%, the biggest loser would be the Irish Republic because of the loss that would then result to its biggest market — GB — and that there would, in fact, be immense opportunity for the agri-food industry in Northern Ireland to fill that gap? Is there recognition by Dublin that they need to protect themselves by ensuring that those in the EU do not insist on a hard border, given that they seem to be the only people talking about one?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. I am aware that they are very concerned about it. They have had meetings with every other member of the EU to put their special case forward so that they are very much on the mind of those members once negotiations take place. The opportunity for Northern Ireland moving forward in all this is immense, given the vacuum that is likely in the GB markets. We saw just last week the interest that there is in British product, when Dunbia (Ballymena) was able to sell its site to a mainland producer. I think that those are positive signs, and there are certainly opportunities for Northern Ireland in all of this.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

That concludes questions to the Minister on her statement. The next item of business in the Order Paper is Question Time. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

The sitting was suspended at 12.52 pm.

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

Oral Answers to Questions — Education

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

1. Mr Agnew asked the Minister of Education to outline any plans to introduce an expanded or universal provision of early years education. (AQO 715/16-21)

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for his question. The Department aims to provide a funded preschool place to every child in their immediate preschool year whose parents want it. In each of the last five years, at least — a minimum of — 99 8% of children whose parents stayed with the preschool admissions process to the end received the offer of a funded preschool place. The aim is reflected in the delivery plan for the draft Programme for Government, which is currently out for consultation, and I intend to ensure that children in their immediate preschool year continue to benefit from access to high-quality, universal early years education provision in the future.

I also plan to work with other Ministers and key Departments in the delivery of actions within the draft Programme for Government and beyond that are aimed at improving well-being and tackling disadvantage through high-quality early years education and childcare provision. The Department will be engaging on the delivery plan over the next few weeks to help inform the development of the key interventions in the published delivery plan, including extending responsive, quality provision in early childhood education and care initiatives for families with children aged three to four to up to 38 weeks per year.

I hope to bring forward the full version of the childcare strategy to my Executive colleagues in the coming months having taken account of the many consultation responses received, the Programme for Government and the new opportunities that now exist to align childcare and early years initiatives. I look forward to engaging with Executive colleagues in more detail on the matter in due course.

I will also indicate that, when we are looking at an expansion of the universal provision of early years education, the definition of it can cover a multitude of subjects. If there are more specific areas the Member wants to raise in addition to whatever response I am able to give to a supplementary question, I would be happy to engage with him if he wants to drill down into some of them.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his answer and, indeed, for the qualification at the end. It concerns me that, whenever we talk about early years, we immediately look at preschool provision and childcare. As the Minister will know, early years is everything from nought-to-six, which is why it is key that he works with his ministerial colleagues, particularly the Minister of Health. To come to my point, Sure Start is, obviously, a targeted provision in Northern Ireland. Are there any proposals to expand that or to even look at it as a universal service or something similar?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

We have to realise that the Department provides £25 million of investment to Sure Start, which, I think, relates to support for around 40,000 children under the age of four and their families. Obviously, the priority is to ensure that all children reach their full potential. At the moment, Sure Start is a targeted service, and there have been some extensions of it. It is a targeted service that has a distinct geographical remit that is defined by ward boundaries, and I know that can be a slightly blunt tool. What it means is that all those within the catchment areas with children under the age of four can access those services. It was initially on the basis of 20% of the most disadvantaged areas. That has now been extended to 25% of the most disadvantaged areas. Findings from an independent review of Sure Start, together with existing research, provide assurances that targeting in areas of highest disadvantage is likely to have the greatest impact.

The Member indicated that it should be a universal service, and, in an ideal world with a limitless amount of money, it would be. If, using a rough rule of thumb, you were talking about something like Sure Start moving from targeting 25% to having a 100% coverage, given the current level of funding, that would probably mean an increase in cost of somewhere in the region of £70 million to £75 million per year. I think that would be very difficult, in many ways, to achieve.

The Member made a valid point about cooperation with Health. There is a large health component, particularly in Sure Start. It is to try to give a better start to those who come from disadvantaged areas in order to close the gap. At one level, if we were to move to a situation in which that was completely universal, it may be advantageous to every pupil in Northern Ireland but would not have a particular impact on closing any gaps, albeit, objectively, it would be regarded as a good thing.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Further to Mr Agnew's question, I point out that your predecessor, Minister O'Dowd, was able to increase provision in the most socially deprived areas from 20% to 25%. We want universal provision, but, in some wards that are otherwise regarded as affluent, there are big pockets of deprivation, so is there any scope for looking at that?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I understand the point, particularly on the distribution of housing in Northern Ireland. We have an unusual feature — those small pockets of deprivation — which probably differentiates us from other jurisdictions. To some extent, if that were the case, you would have to change the basis on which the scheme is administered. If you simply added those areas, it would be an additional cost, and there would be controversy if you were using those effectively to replace some of the wards that are there.

With Sure Start, projects must have certain economies of scale. You cannot provide Sure Start for three children, for instance. You have to ensure that you have sufficient numbers of under-fours, particularly from disadvantaged areas. If you were to string together some pockets of deprivation, that would create difficulty. I entirely understand where the Member is coming from. I suspect that, from a financial or practical point of view, it may create hurdles and difficulties that would be difficult to overcome.

Carla Lockhart (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. I am sure that he will extend his congratulations to Sure Start on its extension in the Mourneview ward in the Lurgan area.

Why should we focus on early years and its importance in the overall educational offering in Northern Ireland?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I add my congratulations to Mourneview. That shows that all politics is local, even for the under-fours. I am sure that the Member is rightly proud of what is happening in Upper Bann.

A range of research and evidence points in the same direction, which highlights the importance of early years to children's cognitive, emotional, social and physical growth. It is vital that children who are starting school have been and continue to be prepared, supported and encouraged to learn. I get a consistent message, particularly from primary schools — to some extent, arguments at later stages in life are slightly skewed by this — that some children coming through the door of a primary school are already well behind on a range of cognitive issues and social skills and even using a knife and fork. The intervention is vital not only in schools but before children come through the school gates.

It is right that the Executive's draft Programme for Government acknowledges early years intervention and provides that opportunity. That is very much in line with outcome 14, which aims to:

"give our children and young people the best start in life".

Similarly, the delivery plan for indicator 15 acknowledges the central role and broad range of agencies and services in taking these interventions forward. That comes back to Mr Agnew's point about the need to try to ensure that we have joined-up services because, particularly in dealing with the very young, you are not simply looking at Education —

Danny Kennedy (Deputy Speaker, Newry and Armagh)

I remind the Minister of the two-minute rule.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

— but the role of Health. So, yes is the answer.

[Laughter.]

Danny Kennedy (Deputy Speaker, Newry and Armagh)

Thank you is the reply.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Opportunities for training, continuing professional development and sharing of best practice are underdeveloped in the early years sector. What plans does the Minister have to include those opportunities?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

With the childcare strategy and the children and young people's strategy, there is an element of things where we will need to look at where we can provide that training and professional development. The Member makes a valid point, and it goes beyond early years and permeates other areas of education. A lot of good things are happening on the ground, and, at times, to get the best delivery, it is a question of, for example, trying to see how we can best explain and, indeed, promulgate that best practice. I know that that has happened in a number of initiatives. Some of that can be disseminated by getting stakeholders together. For example, I have recently accepted an invitation from a group that has been working on underachievement in north Down. It is hosting a conference in February. The focus of a lot of that will be on best practice, because, I think, everybody realises that there are tough financial circumstances. Part of it will be disseminating that best practice. I have accepted the invitation to speak at that conference, and I will also have my officials there. There can be that driver. Even taking it at a different level, if there were no financial problems whatever and there was an abundance of money, best practice should still be a key driver. That should be the case no matter what financial position we are in, because I agree with the Member that we should always be ambitious to ensure that we get the best for all our children.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

2. Mr Lyons asked the Minister of Education whether he plans to reform the entitlement framework. (AQO 716/16-21)

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for his question. The entitlement framework (EF) is and will remain a key component of the statutory curriculum, ensuring that all pupils have access to a broad, balanced and economically relevant range of courses. However, as I think I have said previously, I appreciate that there are significant challenges for schools in trying to meet the entitlement framework requirements in full. They are quite ambitious in terms of numbers. In light of that, I am considering the way forward for the entitlement framework policy, including the statutory requirements. However, in doing so, I want to make sure that we retain the benefits accrued to date and try to build on them. I will soon be meeting officials on that. Again, there is probably a two-stage aspect to this. If there is action that needs to be taken in the short term, that will be looked at. As I have indicated, it will be opportune in this Assembly term to take a wider look at how we deliver the curriculum. I think that you cannot simply do that by taking the entitlement framework out on a limb and setting it to the side. It is about trying to get the right balance so that we get retention of the best that is there from the entitlement framework without placing what could sometimes be an undue burden on schools.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer so far and for his willingness to review the entitlement framework. He is absolutely right that we want to get the right balance, but will he agree that the entitlement framework puts an extra burden on already tight school budgets and that even a little reform in that area could make things an awful lot easier for schools while delivering a quality education for all of our young people?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I agree with the Member. To give the specifics of this, schools are funded through their core delegated budget to deliver the statutory obligations, including the wider curriculum. Of course, the entitlement framework is obviously a major part of that. It very specifically kicks in at Key Stage 4 and the post-16 situation. EF funding has been provided over the last few years, but we need to ensure that a separate stream is not simply a permanent stream and that, as much as possible, we mainstream what is there. That funding, to date, has provided a contribution to the cost of the expanded curriculum.

Also, importantly, a number of schools are embracing the key issue, which is what can be delivered to the students themselves, so I will also look at the regulations. We need to ensure that credit is given to the schools that now operate with greater levels of partnership and sharing, particularly, in the context of the entitlement framework, on what might be described as minority subjects where there is less direct demand. It may be less cost-effective for a school to provide that in their individual environment. For instance, in my constituency, good work is going on between Bangor Grammar, Bangor Academy and St Columbanus' in providing a shared solution in, in particular, A-level courses as part of shared education. Area learning communities will be vital as well. In delivering and striking the right balance, we must ensure that we get the best possible delivery for all our pupils. Using more imaginative solutions can be helpful to that as well.

Patsy McGlone (Deputy Speaker, Mid Ulster)

Many schools struggle to meet the EF requirements, and Mr Lyons referred to some of the pressures on them. Can the Minister advise if there are any resources or support available to those schools to help them in that capacity?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Some additional EF funding has gone to schools. I would indicate that there has been significant achievement in reaching a lot of the targets. The figures for complete compliance show that 40% of schools are completely compliant on every section of this. There are also quite large percentages that are doing the individual aspects of Key Stage 4 or post-16. There are 66 schools that are not meeting them in full. Seven of those are because of the mix of applied and general. However, of the 59 others, 51 are meeting between 20 and 23 courses — the target is 24 courses — so there are schools that are just falling short. Each of the seven schools that are failing to meet the target on the mix is falling short by one general course, so the gap to be bridged is probably not that enormous.

It is also about seeing what we can do from a practical and sensible point of view. Some of that is sharing. Some of that may be that we are asking schools to stretch a bit too much or whatever. There may be issues around the broader level of funding that could be looked at. All of that has to be in the mix. One of the issues that need to be explored — I am mindful that I have 30 seconds, Mr Deputy Speaker — is that we know that a number of schools are falling below it and we probably need to drill down with those schools to find out why they are failing, whether it is purely a question of finance or whether there are any other barriers. We need to have a bit of discussion with schools to see how we can resolve those issues.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I have listened to the answers that you have given. What steps will you and your Department take to address the issue? As you mentioned, quite a percentage of schools are failing to meet the entitlement framework requirements. What actual steps will your Department take?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Presciently, I am holding discussions with officials at 3.00 pm today to look at the best way forward on the entitlement framework. I am conscious that the entitlement framework has delivered a great benefit to pupils. I am conscious that there may well be a range of reasons why schools fall just short. One of the things that we probably have not done to a sufficient level is explore a bit with those schools why they are falling short. If you are looking for solutions, you need to know the reasons behind things in the first place. Starting that conversation will be critical, and it will be ongoing work. It may mean that, as part of the overall process, we need to find short- to medium-term fixes to rectify situations in the short term while looking at the longer-term position. It is about retaining and building; it is not about breaking down what is there. I appreciate that there will be particular circumstances in individual schools. Let us see whether there is a pattern and whether it is simply that providing that would require a level of expenditure that is beyond the schools. As I said, there is a strong case for looking at whether we can provide greater help and assistance for a greater level of sharing. The key element of this will always be what offer is in place to the individual student. The key driver should be to provide the maximum opportunity for the student to follow a range of pathways.

Rosemary Barton (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Can the Minister give us an update on any conversations he has had with the Minister for the Economy on a formal 14-to-19 strategy with collaboration between the further education and post-primary sectors to ensure that the curriculum gives adequate attention to skills-based and vocational education?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

That is a valid point. This needs to be put into a wider context. When I talk about an overall review of the curriculum, I mean one that will, obviously, go beyond simply the 14-to-19 age range. Issues have been raised with me about the primary school curriculum, issues about languages and the need to have a greater emphasis on STEM. However, the principal focus of curriculum reform will be on the 14-to-19 age range and widening that. I have indicated to a number of people that that discussion needs to take place and needs to be quite detailed. There is a key role not simply for the Department of Education, the schools and the bodies that fall, broadly speaking, within our remit but for the Department for the Economy and the colleges. One of the areas that we need to tackle is area planning. I know that, Mr Deputy Speaker, often in the House it seems that time stands still. At least, from the clock, it seems to have stood still.

Danny Kennedy (Deputy Speaker, Newry and Armagh)

It is very unwise to alert me to that. Go ahead.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Absolutely. I do not know whether that means that I have two minutes from this point.

One of the problems we have is that there are schools where there is a high dropout rate for pupils once they get into lower sixth. Sometimes that is because it is not the appropriate place for those students. Therefore, a range of work has to take place on the curriculum, particularly focusing on vocational pathways, not simply with the Department of Education, its arm's-length bodies and schools but with the Department for the Economy, colleges and particularly with industry and business. I have met the CBI, for instance, which is keen to be involved in that work. It is something that will have to do be taken forward on a cross-departmental basis and will go beyond the initial conversation and into a great deal more depth as we move ahead.

Danny Kennedy (Deputy Speaker, Newry and Armagh)

We move on. Time stands still for no person.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

3. Mr McAleer asked the Minister of Education for an update on the current position on funding beyond 2017 for educational programmes that are currently funded by the European Union. (AQO 717/16-21)

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Some €35·3 million is made available for shared education through Peace IV, covering Northern Ireland and the border region of the Republic of Ireland. That comprises €30 million through the European regional development fund (ERDF) plus €5·3 million from both sides of the border in government matched funding.

Although not yet opened to schools and other educational settings, funding post Brexit for Peace IV is included in the guarantee by Treasury for structural and investment fund programmes signed before the UK leaves the EU. I anticipate that processing applications from programme delivery bodies will be completed by the end of this year, with agreements signed and implementation commencing in 2017. Programme funding will be provided until December 2020 to be spent by 2023.

In relation to the other aspect of European funding that is directly relevant to Northern Ireland — the ERASMUS+ programme — the UK National Agency will continue to manage and deliver the programme across the UK, and all participants and beneficiaries should continue with their ERASMUS+ funded activities and preparations for the published application deadlines in 2017. The UK Minister of State for universities, Jo Johnson MP, has stated that the EU referendum result does not affect students studying in the EU, beneficiaries of ERASMUS+ or those considering application in 2017 and that the UK’s future access to the ERASMUS+ programme will be determined as part of the wider discussions that the UK Government will be having with the EU. More broadly, existing UK students studying in the EU and those looking to start in the next academic year will continue to be subject to the current arrangements.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Has he spoken to the British Treasury or sought any assurances for replacement funding for projects that may lose out as result of the vote on exit from the EU?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Directly speaking, this issue is part of the wider picture that the Executive are raising. We have received a level of assurance on Peace IV funding. Look at ERASMUS+, for example: the vast bulk of ERASMUS+ falls under the Department for the Economy, and the schools element of it is relatively small. It is an issue that was discussed on Friday at the North/South Ministerial Council. I do not want to spoil anybody's appetite for the full briefing on that. There will be a statement on that at a later stage, so I will not go further than that. However, I have spoken directly to my opposite number at the Department of Education and Skills.

[Interruption.]

Maybe that has happened — obviously, the Deputy Speaker is more prescient in these things than I am — but it has also been raised in bilaterals between me and the Education and Skills Minister in the Republic of Ireland. On the education side of things, the direct impact in Northern Ireland will be fairly minimal.

Colin McGrath (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Will the Minister consider commissioning a report on the benefits of EU funding for young people in Northern Ireland, if only at least to be prepared, should Brexit continue, to bid for any money to replace it?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I tell the honourable Member that that boat is already sailing, because the UK as a whole has voted to leave. There is work for the overall Executive to do. I will not compartmentalise that. I mentioned ERASMUS+: there is around €5 million from that. Off the top of my head, around €500,000 is going directly to schools. I am also conscious that Ministers should not sail off in their own direction with individual studies, and I am not sure that, if we were to spend a reasonable amount of money doing a study on something that, from an educational point of view, amounts to a relatively small amount of money, it would be good value for money. In the overall picture, we need the Executive to be cognisant of the need to ensure that the difficulties and benefits of Brexit are examined, and we need to harness the maximum potential while trying to protect as much as is possible those who are directly impacted on by it. That is a wider Executive responsibility, however, rather than specifically a Department of Education one.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Brexit is now blamed for every negative in society, so I suspect that the next thing that it will be blamed for is the weather. What will the impact of Brexit be on education in Northern Ireland?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I travelled through the Member's constituency briefly on Thursday en route to a school in Strabane and when heading back. It was a very wet day. To be fair, nobody at that stage blamed Brexit, but that may yet happen.

The Member asked about the overall impact of Brexit. As I indicated, this is probably where my Department's levels of responsibility compared with other bodies are relevant. The Department of Education covers up to 18 — up to 19 for those with special needs — so more of the direct impact will hit, for good or ill, the Department for the Economy, for instance. There is minimal cost impact. As indicated, provision has been made in Peace IV funding, and the direct impact on schools and on, for example, the ERASMUS+ project that has been put in place is relatively minimal. As I said, the value of programmes was a little over €500,000. There are other things that have been mentioned in the House in which there can be ongoing cooperation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, irrespective of the EU and Brexit, such as the Middletown centre. Those are things that, from the point of view of linkages in the Department of Education, are not dependent on membership of the EU and will be utterly unaffected by Brexit.

Danny Kennedy (Deputy Speaker, Newry and Armagh)

I call Mr Edwin Poots for a question. There may not be time for a supplementary question.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

4. Mr Poots asked the Minister of Education for his assessment of school readiness of children starting primary school. (AQO 718/16-21)

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

A range of research and evidence highlights the importance of early years to the cognitive, emotional and physical growth of children. It is vital that children starting school have been and continue to be prepared, supported and encouraged to learn to take full advantage. There is no universal indicator of overall early childhood development. Work on that has been ongoing with the Department of Health through work stream 1 of the early intervention transformation programme, which is a Northern Ireland Executive and Atlantic Philanthropies programme. As part of that work stream, a named health visitor is now aligned with every preschool education setting.

I suspect that the Member may have difficulty getting to ask a supplementary question. There are good initiatives on the ground. The Member was in Lisburn with me on Friday at a launch of an initiative for the Lisburn area on early intervention that looks particularly at communication skills. It is building on Talk Boost. I think that the scheme goes across four areas.

So, good actions are being taken. The importance of early years is critical.

Danny Kennedy (Deputy Speaker, Newry and Armagh)

Unfortunately, the time for listed questions is over, although the Minister's power to predict what the supplementary might have been was remarkable.

[Laughter.]

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I will get you the lottery numbers for Saturday, Danny, and then you can retire.

Danny Kennedy (Deputy Speaker, Newry and Armagh)

More septic Meg than Mystic Meg, I think. We move on to topical questions.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

T1. Mr Aiken asked the Minister of Education what approach he is taking to improve the educational attainment of our post-primary pupils given that, this morning, a report by the Ulster University on the knowledge economy stated that our GVA, driven by our intellectual capital, has dropped from 10·3% to 9·7%, equivalent to a loss of £400 million to our economy and, more worryingly, indicates that we are on a downward trend. (AQT 516/16-21)

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Sometimes the Member will see bright skies but be looking for dark clouds on the horizon.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Brexit must be changing the weather.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

If Brexit is to blame, perhaps you can blame some of your colleagues as well.

[Laughter.]

Some of those issues are directly relevant to the economy, but they underline the need to ensure that there is a review of the curriculum. We have considerable success, particularly on IT issues. For instance, when we looked at the scope of exams that were available from exam boards at GSCE level, one of the direct concerns raised by Queen's University was what would be on offer if we excluded the exam boards from outside Northern Ireland. The exam in IT and computer science offered by CCEA was not as skills-based, which is why I took action to ensure that the examinations system was opened up again. That was done to try to ensure that we have the most appropriate choice to build on that skills base.

There is a wider job of work, as indicated, with the curriculum for the Department of Education and the Department for the Economy, working alongside those who have a degree of expertise at post-primary and tertiary levels.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his comments. I would like him to outline what engagement he plans to have with the Minister for the Economy and the Minister of Finance, because there is a significant shortfall in funding in the area, and it is an area that we specifically need to look at.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

There are wider Executive discussions on funding. Let us be honest: there is a difficult financial regime, so we have to ensure that we get the best possible value for our money. There will be serious engagement with the Department for the Economy and with the Minister for the Economy.

A number of steps have been taken, particularly on the skills barometer and the careers advisory side, as part of a good model of joint working between the Department of Education and the Department for the Economy. There is always the accusation that Departments operate in a degree of silo mentality, and the Department for the Economy and the Department of Education, through actions such as that, show that there can be a level of cooperation to tackle those problems.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

T2. Mr K Buchanan asked the Minister of Education to update Members on the Battlefield project. (AQT 517/16-21)

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for his question. I have been working alongside the Minister for Communities to bring forward a scheme to allow schoolchildren and teachers from here to visit the World War I battlefields. That has been available to schools in England, but, although a few schools have done it, there has not been the same level of availability in Northern Ireland. I am glad that that will mean that schoolchildren from Northern Ireland will have the same opportunities as those in England and Scotland to visit the World War I battlefields.

The scheme will be open to every post-primary school in Northern Ireland that wishes to avail of it; it is not compulsory, but at least it is being allowed. It will allow for two children and a teacher from each post-primary school to visit the World War I battlefields. This will ensure that the sacrifices of all who served in the war are remembered, and people from across the political spectrum and community were involved in that war. These are also their families, because a poignant visit will often be in order to recall or, perhaps, visit the graveside of, a relative who made the supreme sacrifice. It will enable the sacrifices of those who served in the First World War to continue to be honoured and remembered.

My officials are working with officials in the Department for Communities on the finer details. It is my intention that we will be able to launch the scheme before Christmas.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for his answer so far. Would he be of a mind to extend that to youth and community groups?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

That would be the intention. There are ongoing discussions with the Department for Communities to be able to offer places on the scheme to youth and community groups. That would provide an opportunity for young people in the youth and community sector.

While our focus in education is quite often purely on schools, there is a remit, particularly at the youth level, that goes well beyond that. It is important that young people in youth and community groups can also benefit from the scheme, ensuring that as many of them as possible from here will have the opportunity to visit the World War I battle sites and remember the sacrifice of those who died there — who died, in effect, to ensure that the freedom and democracy was put in place that we are able to observe today.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

T3. Mr Douglas asked the Minister of Education to outline what autism support services are available for children and families in east Belfast. (AQT 518/16-21)

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Direct funding for support services goes from the Department to the Education Authority, and it ensures that there is a range of educational provision to support children with autism, their families and schools in east Belfast.

The Education Authority's autism advisory and intervention service provides support to pupils in schools through training and advice to teachers, and individual interventions with pupils. It also provides support to parents and families.

Specifically in east Belfast, there are parent training and workshops available. They include autism awareness, appropriate and effective home interventions, autism and relationships, social and study skills, transition to post-primary school, sensory processing difficulties, and personal independence skills.

I think that parent training is provided at various times and locations to accommodate, where possible, parental preferences. The training is advertised through the child's school setting, which includes the preschool setting. It is also advertised through email and local health trusts.

School training programmes in east Belfast include autism awareness, appropriate and effective classroom and school interventions and adjustments, inclusion for children and young people with autism, social skills, sensory processing difficulties in the school environment, enhancing communication skills in the school setting, and topical issues such as girls with autism. It is provided in the school setting or at an off-school site.

I think that there is training for other groups in east Belfast that support children with autism, including voluntary organisations, health professionals and youth centres. They also provide consultation and advice and work collaboratively, particularly with the Middletown Centre, which has a level of expertise.

In addition to the autism support that I outlined, there are other provisions and services in the Education Authority, including the early years inclusion team and educational psychology and behavioural support.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his answer thus far. I want to thank him as well for attending the Helping Hands autism resource centre in Ballybeen. Maybe the Minister could look at what help or support could be provided to that organisation, which is a group of families and volunteers.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I very much enjoyed my trip there. There is tremendous potential in addition to what is already happening in Ballybeen. There is potential for the future there, and I know there is ongoing work.

I suppose there are two aspects to this. The direct-funding organisation in each case would be the Education Authority because it would have overall responsibility for special needs. There is specific education funding for special needs through the Education Authority budget. There is also £33 million of resource funding for youth services because this can also come under youth services.

Under article 37 of the Education and Libraries Order, the Education Authority has direct responsibility for the provision of those services, and, indeed, youth services. It covers a wide range, and can be between the ages of four and 25, which is very much within the remit of Helping Hands.

I understand that Helping Hands is currently registered with the EA's Youth Service and is, therefore, receiving resource funding. Additionally, a call has been made for the voluntary youth capital scheme to fund groups that are registered with the Education Authority, and Helping Hands is eligible to apply for that. There is a direct source in that, but there is no specific open call beyond that. I congratulate Helping Hands on its work so far and wish it every success for the future.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Like, I am sure, other Members, I have held recent meetings with teachers who are concerned about their pay dispute and conditions.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

T4. Mr Butler asked the Minister of Education to detail what measures he has in place to mitigate the impact on children in the classroom of the proposed one-day strike by the NASUWT. (AQT 519/16-21)

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I am worried that Chris Lyttle might kill me if I answered this in detail, given that he has been given a question for urgent oral answer at 3.30 pm. The date referred to is, I think, 30 November. I will go into greater detail when the question for urgent oral answer is asked, but correspondence has gone out from the Education Authority to all schools in connection with this.

I appeal to the unions to suspend any industrial action and try to have discussions about it. I will not pretend that there is additional money in the budget, but the wider context of where we move to from 2017 onwards needs to be examined. We cannot have industrial disputes almost ad nauseam. The NASUWT, for instance, has been taking constant industrial action for the past five years. Its action on different things has been ongoing since 2011. We need to have a sensible conversation, so I appeal, as the management side of the teacher negotiating committee, to the unions not to implement strike action that would be detrimental to pupils — indeed, in many ways, it would also be detrimental to their members — but to have that wider discussion on how we can take things forward from 2017. Let us try to put the past behind us and look to the future.

Danny Kennedy (Deputy Speaker, Newry and Armagh)

Order. Whilst the Minister has answered the question, we should carefully note that provision has been granted for a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister on the issue at approximately 3.30 pm. Will the Member bear that in mind as he asks his supplementary?

[Laughter.]

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I suppose, being new to the House, that I will get away with this only once or twice more. With that in mind, I am more than happy to wait for the question for urgent oral answer and for my supplementary to be answered then.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

On the basis of not repeating myself, I refer the Member to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

T5. Mr Kelly asked the Minister of Education to outline the key messages in the Chief Inspector’s annual report. (AQT 520/16-21)

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

The Chief Inspector will hold schools to a very high standard of account. A mixed picture emerged from the report, which talked about there being much to celebrate in our system. Primary schools have remained on a steady but fairly high level, and we have seen improvement in post-primary schools. However, the report also challenges us, saying that not everything that we have is fit for purpose. In part, that is because we need to ensure that educational resources are focused very directly on that.

The report highlights the need to ensure that opportunities for early intervention to make wider changes need to be taken. It is a useful document in the way that it drills down into that. While the inspectorate receives its budget directly through the Department of Education, it is an independent organisation. At times, schools will be a little frustrated at the level of its independence. It is important that we acknowledge that schools are delivering against a very tight financial background, and some have been very successful. Some are improving, and some are remaining the same, despite the fact that their budgets are tighter.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for his answer. I appreciate that he will look at underachievement, but will he be a bit more specific about how the report will focus him and his Department on the issue?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Obviously, this is a key part of the PFG targets as well. It is important that, if we are looking at what actions are taken on underachievement, they are seen against a baseline of data that shows where some of the problems are. That is where the scoping exercise comes in. The other advantage is that the inspectorate, albeit against toughening conditions from a budget point of view, can give snapshots not simply of where we are today but of where we were in 2014 and 2012 etc. I have to say that, while there are challenges, there are encouraging messages as well. For instance, we have seen a driving-up of standards, particularly with improved exam results amongst those on free school meals. That is to be welcomed. We need to embrace the gains and see where there are further gaps. It gives a statistical basis and, indeed, a professional judgement basis for deciding what actions need to happen next. That is why it is a very important document.

Danny Kennedy (Deputy Speaker, Newry and Armagh)

Time is up. We must now move on to questions to the Minister of Finance.

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Danny Kennedy (Deputy Speaker, Newry and Armagh)

Sorry?

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

Can I make a point of order?

Danny Kennedy (Deputy Speaker, Newry and Armagh)

Not during Question Time.

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

For the Minister?

Danny Kennedy (Deputy Speaker, Newry and Armagh)

No. Points of order are not permitted during Question Time.

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

Sorry. Thank you.

Oral Answers to Questions — Finance

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

1. Mr Beggs asked the Minister of Finance whether the funding guarantee from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on structural and investment fund projects signed before the United Kingdom leaves the European Union applies to all such projects. (AQO 730/16-21)

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

3. Ms Boyle asked the Minister of Finance for an update on his engagement with the European Union. (AQO 732/16-21)

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 1 and 3 together.

The guarantee for structural and investment fund projects signed prior to any change of relations with the EU applies to all projects approved under those funds. I have already placed a copy of the correspondence in that regard from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the Assembly Library. I visited Brussels last week, where I continued to press the importance of EU funding and continued full engagement with the EU. As the Member knows, I have taken and will continue to take all opportunities available to me to vigorously promote the interests of this jurisdiction within the EU.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

It is important that there is clarity, so can the Minister say definitively, once and for all, whether the commitment by the Treasury that it would guarantee funding for structural and investment fund projects signed before the UK leaves the EU, even where projects continue after we have left, applies to the York Street interchange? There has been a lot of discussion about that. Does he accept there is a divergence between what he and the Infrastructure Minister have been saying and what the Treasury has said? Can he explain?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Yes, but the Member has to listen this time, so we will try again. You are right: absolutely, as I said in my answer, any letters of offer signed off before relations with the EU change will be honoured in full. Any letters of offer signed off after that, if such a thing could happen, will not be honoured in full. There are programmes, including infrastructure programmes, that we believe will not even open until 2018, and it is possible that letters of offer will not be signed or issued until after an exit from the EU. I am very clear on that, I think Mr Hammond is very clear on it as well and I think Ministers are.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his answer. What specific measures is he putting in place, as he alluded to, to protect funding streams for the North?