Northern Ireland Assembly, 23 January 2017

650 contributions from 66 members. The official report.

Matter of the Day

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Mr Doug Beattie has been given leave to make a statement on the shooting of a police officer in north Belfast. This fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should rise in their places and continue to do so. All Members who are called will have up to three minutes to speak on the matter.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am sure that the House will join me in condemning the indiscriminate shooting and attempted murder of a police officer in north Belfast. It was a cowardly act that brings nothing to society and furthers no cause. What it does do is that it inflicts misery on a community that has already suffered so much, and all they want to do is live in peace, as we all do. This attack was carried out by thugs, by criminals, by career terrorists; but let us not think of them as some rogue element, because this attempted murder was rooted in one community or the other. It will have taken months in the planning. There will have been intelligence teams to watch the police and their movements. There will have been somebody who supplied the gun and somebody who supplied the car. There will have been lookouts, and there will have been scouts, not to mention the person who drove the car and not to mention the person who pulled the trigger. In pulling the trigger, he endangered not just the police officers but every single person who was in that forecourt and well beyond. High-velocity rounds are indiscriminate. They will enter the body through muscle and tissue. The round will break bone, and it will keep going. It will ricochet off concrete, it will ricochet off structures, it will penetrate walls, it will penetrate windows, and it will penetrate men, women and children who are in that area.

To spray an area with 24 high-velocity rounds is an absolute and utter disgrace, and it is incumbent on all of us here today — it is good to see all of us represented here today — to have a single and united voice and to watch our language.

We should watch our language and our words because we do not want to raise tensions in our community. We have to be careful about what we say. I want to know where the weapon came from for the shooting yesterday. Was it a new weapon? If so, where did it come from? If it is an old weapon — a decommissioned weapon — I want to know. I also want to know whether anybody involved — it will have taken many people — is on licence, and, if it is proven that they were involved, they should be returned to prison immediately.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I feel that we have failed our country and we need to support the PSNI in the rule of law and order.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The event that took place on the Crumlin Road in north Belfast last night was an appalling attempt to murder a police officer or police officers. It is a chilling and terrible reminder of those dark days — some of the darkest days — when such attacks were a regular occurrence in Belfast. It is a reminder of the method that was used and the murderous intent of those who carried out the attack. It is wrong to murder police officers; it is wrong to murder anyone. It was wrong when it was the old IRA doing it years ago, it was wrong when it was the Provisional IRA doing it more recently, and it is wrong today, whatever version of the IRA may be doing it.

Our hope and prayer today should be for the recovery of the wounded officer, and our thoughts are with him and his family. Such an attack on a garage forecourt, where people are milling around — young people, elderly folk, people out and about their business, as well as the intended target — means that anyone could have been cut down and killed on the spot last night. It is reminiscent of the 1970s and 1980s in Belfast. Sadly, there are those around today who want to drag us back to a violent past. In recent months, we have seen an upsurge in violent activity by extreme republican elements. We have seen bomb devices being used and shootings, particularly in west Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland. It is clear that there has been an increased level of activity on top of the ongoing attacks against police officers and prison officers. Fortunately, on this occasion, the intended target was not killed. Fortunately, on the previous occasion of an attack on the Crumlin Road not so long ago, the intended victims were not killed. It is a stark reminder of the responsibility of all of us to make sure that those who are responsible for such attacks are brought before the courts.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Every support should be given to the police in dealing with those who carry out such murderous attacks.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I join, I presume, all other Members in the Assembly, as an elected representative for North Belfast, personally and on behalf of Sinn Féin, in hoping that this young police officer — I understand that he was very young and was a probationer in his early 20s — recovers fully from his wounds. We could easily have been talking about a death today and a family suffering that death instead of, hopefully, the recovery that we will see. As Members said, other people could have been killed or maimed in the open forecourt of a garage. Let me condemn it, absolutely and outright. Let me also say that, as a representative for the area — all representatives for the area will be of one voice on this — the people who vote for us, right across the board, are absolutely opposed to the people involved in this. The people involved are most likely the same people who have attacked their own community, and killed and maimed in that community in the not so distant past in the last number of months. There is a duty on everyone and anyone who has any information that could lead to the apprehension of those involved to bring that forward immediately. I hope that the young man makes a full recovery and that these people know that they should get off the backs of the local community and the overall society to which we belong.

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I will speak on behalf of the SDLP and the many constituents who contacted me last night to express their shock and anger at the despicable gun attack on an officer out on duty, trying to serve and protect our community. I add my voice to the unreserved condemnation of that attack, and I urge anyone with any information, no matter how small it may seem, to please pass that on to the PSNI.

I express in the House today my best wishes to and my concern for that police officer. Indeed, last night, when I spoke with his colleagues at local and senior level, I asked that those wishes be passed on and the wishes of the people, many of them in Ardoyne and right across north Belfast, who contacted me last night to ask that I would do that on their behalf.

Many issues divide us in the House, but it is clear today that there is an issue that unites us, and that is our unreserved condemnation of what took place last night. The truth is that violence has no place in our society. All it serves to do is to create heartache, pain and suffering. As each and every one of us in the House knows, there are far too many families in our constituencies who endure that pain and suffering daily. So, I think that it is right that we stand united and send that very strong message to those who were behind the attack last night, but, importantly, to the people right across north Belfast. We will stand against this; we will stand opposed to this; and we will stand up for those who deserve it.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

First, I extend my sympathy and my best wishes to the young officer who was wounded in last night's shooting in north Belfast. I hope that he makes a full recovery, physically and mentally, from the impact of his injuries, and I send good wishes today to him and his family. I also extend my best wishes to his colleagues who were at the scene last night and to those throughout Northern Ireland whose sense of safety has been shaken again as they go about serving our community and securing our safety.

My thoughts are also with the members of the public who were in that garage last night, going about their business when this reckless attack took place. This was not an attack on an individual police officer or an attack on the PSNI; this was an attack on our entire community. It says all that we need to know about the kind of people who were involved that they would attempt to kill a person who is serving their community and do so with such reckless disregard for the community in which they serve. These people are nothing but despicable cowards. They have nothing to offer the people of Northern Ireland. I focus my thoughts and my best wishes on those like the young officer who was affected; those who want to give service to their community and to make it a better place. I send our best wishes to him today.

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

I am speaking for all members of the Green Party today. I join the calls to condemn the attack that took place last night. I was very shocked, for many reasons, as the news broke last night. I was not long home from my local garage forecourt when I saw the breaking news. That forecourt is not simply a garage; it is also a corner shop for my area. It is where I went for a pint of milk on a Sunday night, and I am sure that many people at the garage last night where the attack happened were doing the same: they were getting milk for the fridge, they were getting food for their children's packed lunches and they were filling up their cars. It is a public area, and there is absolutely no excuse for what took place. It is not heroic to fire a rain of bullets in these circumstances.

It was a terrible attack on a public servant and the wider public. What will be heroic is when that police officer returns to this duties trying to do all that he can to protect our community and make us safer. He will be the hero when he returns to duty. I hope that he makes a full recovery. I wish him all the best.

It is good that all Members in the House can stand in unity against those who want to bring fear and violence into our communities. Thankfully, the officer is in a stable condition, but things could have turned out very differently, either for him or anybody else in the vicinity. The local community are very angry about what has happened. We must continue to work to make sure that it does not happen again.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

The futility of yesterday's shooting on the Crumlin Road should be clear to everybody. Nothing can be achieved from carrying out such attacks. People Before Profit is calling for an immediate cessation of all paramilitary actions. No amount of rhetoric can hide the fact that armed struggle is a dead end. We urge those who are involved in these reckless attacks to ask themselves a simple question: what has been achieved? Decades of armed struggle by the Provisional IRA did not end in victory. A much smaller campaign that is carried out today is even less likely to achieve anything. Needless suffering and the imprisonment of another generation of people is all that will result.

Politicians from the establishment parties will queue to take turns to condemn this attack — and they should do, of course — but their words will ring hollow given the millions of pounds that they are funnelling to paramilitary-linked organisations, particularly within loyalism; so, too, will the calls from senior PSNI officials to challenge the scourge of paramilitarism. Was it not only a few months ago that the BBC aired a damning documentary that showed that a cosy relationship between the PSNI and paramilitaries is still alive and well in the new Northern Ireland? There is plenty of condemnation but little consistency from the establishment.

People Before Profit, on the other hand, is consistent in its approach. We want to see an end to all paramilitarism. Attacks like the one on the Crumlin Road will only reinforce division and distract from the pressing need for a united movement that will challenge the corruption and austerity of the establishment.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

My primary thoughts are with the officer who was subjected to this vile attack last night. We wish him well and a full recovery. It is a reminder to us of how the police and security services stand between us and those with murder in their hearts. Although, happily, this officer escaped death, that was not thanks to those who set out patently with murder in their hearts and used weaponry that was most likely to occasion murder even on a mass scale. It is a quite shocking situation, but let it be said that it is no more shocking, no more vile and no more unjustified than the terrorists of the IRA or anyone else who, for years, inflicted such horror; those who, with murder in their hearts, went out and did murder.

I listened today to condemnation from Mr Gerry Kelly, himself a convicted terrorist, who, to this day, has not acknowledged that his terrorism was wrong, unjustified and uncalled for, but rather still honours and glories in, as does his party, those very acts of terror. What does that do today? It does not just speak to their character, but to today's terrorists; gives them succour, provides a crutch for them and causes them to conclude that if it was OK for the Provos, it is OK for them. Until those who represented that previous terrorism acknowledge and renounce it, then that crutch is going to continue to be provided.

I will make one other point. I hope someone — hopefully, more than one person — is made amenable for this crime. I trust that, when they are arrested, they will not be easily, as was the person charged with the attempted murder of David Black, admitted to bail, and that their bail terms will not be made so easy if they are admitted to bail, and they should not be in the first place.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Will the Member conclude his remarks?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

There should be no bail for anyone charged with an offence such as this.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

I welcome today's Matter of the Day, and I appreciate Mr Beattie for tabling it. I also welcome the widespread condemnation that has appeared from all sides of this House. Rightly so, because this issue serves to unite us.

I have no doubt that this attack was intended to kill. Thankfully, the officer is in a stable condition, but we could have been hearing about a loss of life this morning. This is not just an attack on our police service; this is an attack on the community and an attack on our country. It was reckless; multiple automatic rounds fired into a public space. I am disgusted.

There remains a continued threat against police officers and prison officers in Northern Ireland. We cannot become complacent, and whilst there is political instability happening in Northern Ireland right now, this threat has continued right through it. Others will see this as an opportunity to take advantage. If I can give a clear message to this Assembly today, it is that we, as elected representatives, can ensure they do not take advantage of that and we do stand united. Whilst I stand here as the representative for East Londonderry, I also have an interest as Justice Minister. I have been keeping in close contact with the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable on this issue.

It is something that does concern me. From the outset of the political instability, I was always concerned that someone would take advantage of it, and I hope this is not an example of that. If we can move forward, we have to move forward in the right space, because we cannot return to the dark days of the past. Today, we should all be condemning this most dreadful incident.

On another note, I want to pay tribute to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Particularly in my experience as Justice Minister, I have seen the hard work that they do. They put their lives on the line every day for us, in the service of the people of Northern Ireland, and we cannot underestimate that. It is cowardly for someone to take an opportunity, as these despicable individuals have done last night, and it is nothing short of disgusting. That is the clear message that we, as a united Assembly, have to send out today.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I join with others in condemning the attack last night — a murderous attack to kill a police officer in my constituency.

Just before 7.30 pm last night I heard the shots, the sirens and then the helicopter. It was very clear that something had seriously gone wrong. I spoke to police, and I started to receive calls from constituents, and I heard very clearly that there had been a shooting at Edenderry filling station on the Crumlin Road.

I visited the site and spoke to some of the officer's colleagues, who were visibly shaken because they had been serving with him only earlier that day. Some of them had lockers beside his in the station. I spoke to constituents who were at the scene. Today, I want to express my revulsion at this attack and send my thoughts to the officer, his family and his colleagues who are so clearly worried at this time.

This is the first shooting of a police officer for eight years in Northern Ireland. It is clearly an attempt by evil people not only to kill police, but also to kill the general public. As others have said, it was totally random and indiscriminate — gunfire into a garage forecourt in a built-up area, with Edenderry Gardens to its left and Edenderry Lofts to its right. Gunfire across a main arterial route in our city, into a forecourt with 12 members of the general public and the police who were there at the time.

This morning, I visited the manager of the petrol station at home. She told me that there were gunshots inches from gas tanks and fuel pumps. We could have been looking at real carnage — not just in terms of the murder that this police officer and his colleagues could well have had to face, but an explosion, from reckless, inhumane, evil people who, frankly, have to be brought to justice and removed from society. No politician and no party — and I am pleased to hear today's debate — should give them any succour, support or credence at any time ever.

There is also clear disruption to business life in north Belfast this morning, although these people do not think about that. There was disruption to that business: it lost last night's trading and, all day today, the garage will remain closed. Traffic chaos ensued on the Crumlin Road this morning.

We must all stand together against violence, intimidation and threats. I am concerned that this sort of violence follows a vacuum that has been created in Northern Ireland and that evil people might fill it. That is a danger that we face and it is a reason why this community — the Assembly and the people of Northern Ireland — is looking for leadership. We must all come together to show these people that they cannot and will not win. The people of Northern Ireland do not want to go back to the bad old days.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Will the Member conclude his remarks?

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

They want to see Northern Ireland move forward and an end to this evil from evil people.

Ross Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I begin by passing my best wishes to the police officer who was seriously injured last night and to his colleagues in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that we will all condemn this murderous attack, which could have resulted not only in the death of a police officer but of civilians, as was highlighted by my colleague Captain Beattie.

This attack was clearly not something that happened on a whim. Throughout the last term of the previous Assembly and this term of the present Assembly, we have had incidents throughout Northern Ireland. In my constituency of West Tyrone, and in the neighbouring one of Foyle, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has recovered many weapons and explosives, all belonging to terror groups that do not have the guts to give themselves a name or, at times, call themselves the "Continuity IRA" or whatever. I have a name for them, and that is "cowards"; that is all they have ever been and all they ever will be.

Twenty-four years ago today, a 21-year-old Royal Ulster Constabulary officer was shot dead in Londonderry. He had his whole life in front of him. Constable Michael Ferguson was done to death by the same sort of individual who tried to kill the police officer last night in Belfast. There is no difference. For all we know, the same weaponry was used. For years, I have been asking the police for information on weaponry that has been recovered and its history. For some reason, that information has never been released. Why? Can that weaponry be traced back to the IRA? Is there a possibility that groups that were IRA took their weaponry with them? Of course there is. That element of collusion between the IRA — the Provisional IRA and the ABCDEFG IRA — is here to today. All that weaponry must be surrendered to the police.

This is my last opportunity to speak to the Assembly. Some of you may be glad to know that I am retiring from politics. I hope that, in the next Assembly, no politician has to stand up and condemn a murderous attack on a police officer. Anyone who is prepared to wear the uniform should get the support of the Assembly.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Will the Member conclude his remarks?

Ross Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I pledge my support to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, incorporating the Royal Ulster Constabulary GC, and I hope that everybody else does.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Last night was a stark reminder of what many of us grew up with in this country and what many of us heard all the time in news reports: murders and attempted murders. First, I wish the police officer well in his recovery; we are thankful that his injuries are not life-threatening.

This has not been a success for those who set out last night. Success for them means the same outcome as happened with Constable Carroll, David Black and Adrian Ismay and, indeed, civilians who have been targeted by the same individuals. What stands as a stark reminder to us all is that, this time 10 years ago, we were discussing with our members and the wider public the outcome of the St Andrews negotiations and whether we should proceed into government with Sinn Féin, which was a hugely difficult decision for us. We took the decision to do so because we did not want to go back; we wanted to go forward.

We are now in a similar circumstance in Northern Ireland, where, perhaps, others have greater problems, but the question that has to be posed is this: are we going to back or are we going to go forward? Instability creates vacuums, and evil people step into those vacuums. I think that it is incumbent upon each and every one of us to commit ourselves to ensuring that we, for all the problems and wrongs of Stormont, continue to provide stability and leadership and continue to be there for the people of Northern Ireland, because we have had the awful, horrible, bloody past that I have had to grow up in, and I do not want my children or grandchildren to grow up in that environment. I want the people who carry out the likes of the shooting last night to be marginalised, sidelined and incarcerated and to serve very long sentences for what they do, not given the opportunity to go out to carry out more of this in the name of Ireland or of any other cause.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I call Mr Trevor Lunn. Mr Lunn, you have two minutes.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I join everybody else who has spoken in utter condemnation of a cowardly attack on a police officer; attempted murder; bullets sprayed across a petrol station forecourt. I do not think that whoever did this cared whether there was collateral damage, somebody else injured or a gas tank or a fuel explosion. They are indifferent to those kinds of things.

I understand from the media this morning that, 43 years ago, there was an attack on virtually the same spot and two civilians were killed. Now, 43 years on, we are still seeing bullets flying on the Crumlin Road — shot by somebody who, clearly, has a different view of the future of the state of Northern Ireland and has nothing whatsoever to offer our society in terms of progress or sensible thought.

Nowadays, the PSNI can operate with reasonable freedom with regard to their own security. They are able to use petrol stations and takeaways. The reason for that is that they have achieved the confidence of the community, and the community, generally, has accepted that they operate without fear or favour. That actually assists a dissident — if it was a dissident — in being able to mount this kind of attack. I completely agree with Mr Beattie that one person could not have done this on their own. The Chief Constable said the same thing this morning. It has to be a gang; it has to be organised.

I hope that the person or persons responsible can be brought to justice. I pray for the full recovery of the young police officer. I hope that it does not put his colleagues off in any way, and I hope it does not put off other young people who would like to join the force, because that is the last thing we need, and it would be a success for the people who did this.

Assembly Business

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 23 January 2017.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

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

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

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 23 January 2017.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On today's agenda, we would have normally received Question Time from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. We appreciate that that office does not exist and therefore they will not be here to do that. Mr Speaker, I think there is an issue that requires some investigation; it is in respect of the historical institutional abuse inquiry, which will be a topic of discussion today. On Friday evening, a press statement was issued by the Executive Office in respect of the inquiry. Will you find out for Members who initiated that press statement and, if it was made in the name of the junior Ministers, why they cannot be here today to answer questions?

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

You have placed your concerns on record. We will follow up on the matter, Mr Dickson, and correspond with you on it.

Executive Committee Business

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

The next item of business is a motion to approve a statutory rule. I remind Members that this debate was adjourned for seven days on Monday 16 January, in accordance with Standing Order 16. Members will wish to note that, as Standing Orders require, a Member may speak only once during a debate on a motion. Therefore, only Members who did not speak during the debate on Monday 16 January will be allowed to speak during today's debate.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important piece of business in the House today. I thank the Minister for his work in bringing forward the regulations. They are an important step in introducing effective and realistic cost controls to reduce the burden upon our Budget and help bring controls to the scheme. I know that the Minister and his officials have worked extensively on bringing forward the proposals and have rightly taken the time to ensure that they are compliant and effective. I believe that the plans will run from April 2017 to April 2018 and will start the journey towards a longer-term solution to further reduce public expenditure on the scheme. There is no doubt that these actions had to be taken to reduce the pressure on public-sector budgets, whilst ensuring that those who have acted in good faith by investing in technology and equipment are not unfairly penalised.

On Thursday 19 January 2017, the Economy Committee heard a presentation from the Renewable Heat Association (RHA), which outlined how it had seen the boilers as effective in meeting the energy needs of various sectors, including poultry and mushroom production. It also raised genuine concerns about the potential impact of the revised tariffs for the businesses that it represents, and I trust that those can be worked on in the days ahead.

When the renewable heat incentive was introduced, there were many calls to try to move away from an over-reliance on imported fossil fuels. The intentions of the scheme were clearly to try to move away from a reliance on fossil fuels and look at renewable energy as a way of meeting the energy needs of, first, the non-domestic sector in 2012 and then the domestic sector in 2014. A target to increase the level of renewable heat to 10% by 2020 was included in the strategic energy framework, and an interim target of 4% renewable heat by 2015 was also included in the then Programme for Government to help the UK meet its 15% renewable energy target. Despite those targets being in place, initial interest and uptake in the scheme was low, and there appeared to be reluctance among the business community to go with the significant investment that was required to install the necessary equipment.

One point raised by the group at the Economy Committee last Thursday was that the reduction in oil prices resulted in the cost of pellet production being reduced significantly; therefore, the scheme became more attractive.

There is no doubt that mistakes and errors have been made in the RHI scheme. That was widely acknowledged by Arlene Foster, in the House on 19 December, and by our Economy Minister. The lack of cost control measures and the flaws in its design have been acknowledged. At a recent meeting of the Public Accounts Committee, we heard from the permanent secretary, who stated:

"The intention was good, but the execution and design were seriously wrong."

On the controls and measures relating to the design of the RHI scheme, the DETI business case was presented to DFP on 9 March 2012. Paragraph 2.3.2 of the executive summary states:

"Tiering is not included in the Northern Ireland scheme because in this instance the subsidy rate is lower than the incremental cost."

Degression, which has been debated at length, was also considered at paragraph 7.5.5, which stated:

"degression is a mechanism, whereby tariffs would be automatically reduced on an annual basis to reflect, and to potentially encourage the reduction of technology costs for renewable heating."

Paragraph 7.5.6 states:

"at this stage DETI does not propose to include/build degression into the NI RHI legislation, however may consider the need to do so in the future."

The internal DETI casework committee considered these proposals on 9 March 2012 and approved the NI RHI renewable heat premium payment (RHPP) scheme and administration arrangements with Ofgem. It is now, therefore, clear from the information detailed in the approved DETI business case that tiering of payments and degression were not included in the design of the RHI scheme.

There were clear risks from the start, with two bodies involved in managing the scheme: DETI was responsible for the policy framework, while Ofgem, acting as the administrator, managed the applications and installations, including compliance. There were risks of ownership and responsibility in the scheme. Departmental officials admitted poor management of the scheme, with no clear project management in place, which would have involved regular management review of all risks, including finance and quality. It would appear from the information that we have gathered that some farmers and industrial operators saw RHI as an income generator rather than as a means to reduce the cost of energy in their business, which was the key rationale behind the introduction of the scheme in the first place.

Lessons must be learned from the scheme and corrective actions put in place to stop the recurrence of such a system failure in the future. That is why I welcome the regulations coming forward today. I trust that these plans will provide a road map and an important first step towards dealing with the problem and will gain the support of the House.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Belfast South)

I welcome the Economy Minister's proposals today. As I said last week, I welcome the acknowledgement in his statement of regret and the acknowledgement that serious mistakes led to the perverse incentives to overuse heat. This was clearly not the intention. As I also said last week, good policy development and design are absolutely essential to changing outcomes for the better and for good government policies and interventions. The process for good policy design failed in this case, with the tariff issue not being identified at the time as necessary. An inquiry will find out why this process failed and what lessons must be learned.

These regulations will, hopefully, reduce any Northern Ireland liability for additional cost as soon as possible. However, it is only one part of the issue. There is much to be considered and many questions to be asked. How did this happen? Why was the tariff removed by officials? Why did officials recommend a policy design without the tariff? Did this issue come up during Committee evidence, and was it raised by those who were called before the Committee? Why did the safeguards and scrutiny mechanisms fail to identify the tariff issue at the time when the policy design was agreed? These are important and critical issues for all of us here.

The evidence to the PAC on Wednesday clearly highlighted that this was not a failing by just one person. Regardless of your view — I have heard many different views across all the parties — on ministerial responsibility and the clear desire constantly articulated by many in the Chamber to blame just one person, I would respectfully and strongly say that this will not solve the issue. It is clear from the evidence to the PAC, the evidence to the Committee and the discussions so far that this was a failure in process. Blaming just one person for that will not resolve the failings in that process.

I know that we all want to have good policy design. For good policy design and good policies, we need to make sure that that process is right.

The design process by officials and consultants failed. The business case scrutiny process did not identify the problems. All the evidence given to the Committee did not inform its recommendation. Remember that the Committee recommended this design. This is a very interesting aspect to note. There has been discussion across the Chamber thus far on the role of the Committee. I say this not to blame others for the mistakes that were made but to highlight that mistakes were made by everybody in this process. The Committees of the Northern Ireland Assembly, set up under the Good Friday Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, have a very different role from some Committees in other Assemblies and Parliaments. The Committees of the Northern Ireland Assembly were to have a collaborative role. They were to work together on policy design. It is absolutely clear in the legislation that the statutory duty of Committees is not just to scrutinise but to help Ministers in the development and formulation of policy. That is a critical difference. It is a difference that means that all of us, all the parties that sat on those Committees, cannot brush off responsibility for that policy development.

This is important because all of us are human and capable of making mistakes. That is why we have the safeguards in place. If people did not make mistakes, if policy design did not have flaws, and if all these issues could be identified by just one person, why would we have scrutiny? Why would we set up these safeguards? The very reason why they are there is to protect against that happening, but all of that failed in this case.

Just last week, Jim Allister said in the Chamber that the Executive had failed but, on the whole, the scrutiny and legislative process of the Northern Ireland Assembly had worked. All of us and every party around the Chamber have to be honest about this. The policy design and proposal went to the Executive, and the entire Executive agreed those. The policy design and proposals went to the Committee. Unlike the Minister, the Committee had the capability and took the opportunity to call evidence from people who were impacted by the scheme, the experts on the scheme and the officials who gave technical advice. That Committee, on questioning all that evidence and listening to the key stakeholders at first hand, looked at the original flawed design and said, "We agree that this is a good design". The Committee, in line with its statutory duty to help to formulate Government policy and to help the Minister, under the chairmanship of the SDLP and with representatives of all the parties across the Chamber with the exception of the Alliance Party, recommended the original design. That scrutiny did not work, but it did not stop there.

The policy proposal went through the business case process with experts in our system, including economists, specialists and civil servants. I have had the opportunity to serve as a special adviser and a Minister, and I know how challenging and difficult it can be to get policy through a business case process. That is the process in which all these questions are asked. Furthermore, it is not just about policy; it is about economics. Trained, professional economists look at this. They do the figures on the business cases. They work out the sums and try to identify flaws. That process did not identify the tariff issue. That was a failure in the business case process, and we all need to know why, because we all want good policies and good initiatives that meet the outcomes that are set down for them.

It did not stop there. After the policy proposal was cleared by officials, after it went to the Committee, where evidence was heard and a recommendation to support went back to the Department, and after it went through the business case process, it came to the House. Jim has indicated that the scrutiny and legislative processes of the House were good. I have no doubt that a research pack was completed and made available to all Members and that they read that and looked at the regulations and proposals. All the parties across the House supported the original flawed scheme.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Belfast South)

Yes.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Member may recall that her party colleague William McCrea used to sing a little song called 'Excuses'. Does that not sum up exactly her speech and that of Mr Dunne this morning, which have tried to spread the blame to everyone else and run away from the reality that it was Arlene Foster — Arlene Foster alone was the Minister — who signed off this scheme without the cost controls? No matter who else you might try to smear, that is the irreducible realty.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Belfast South)

Thank you for your comment. I had hoped that you would have listened to what I said. I think that this has to go above and beyond party politics. We have to step back and look objectively at the evidence before us, the evidence that was in front of the PAC and the evidence that we have all heard. This was not a failing of a single individual. The permanent secretary of the Department went to the PAC last week and highlighted that the recommendation to the Minister clearly did not have the tariff issue involved in it and that the tariff was not recommended to the Minister. We have to ask why. If you are right, Jim, and one person is removed, that would not change the fact that the team of officials failed to recommend a tariff, that the business case process failed to identify this and that the Committee, on listening to the evidence, failed to pick this up. This is not just about one individual and, if we think it is, we are destined to make the same mistakes again. We are all human. Everybody is capable of making a mistake and everybody is capable of following the recommendations of officials and experts because that is what we are told we should do.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Belfast South)

There is also a safeguard that that recommendation is questioned and interrogated by the House, by the Committee and by the processes that we have set up. It is not about excuses. It is about being objective and honest. Do you know what? I may not be back. Eighteen people across the Chamber will not be back to the Assembly. Regardless of that, regardless of the party politics and regardless of my personal role, there are important lessons for us all to learn above and beyond party politics. We need and want good policy in Northern Ireland and we need and want good initiatives in Northern Ireland, and that must require good processes and the best people, in terms of experts, being able to feed through the right recommendations for us to take.

Jennifer Palmer (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Belfast South)

Sorry, Steven asked first.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. She made the point that one person was not to blame. Apart from the fact that there were those of us, including me, who did raise issues about the scheme early on, it was one person who, once this became public knowledge, did not accept responsibility as Minister, kept trying to put the blame on civil servants, the media, the Opposition and everyone else, and one person who refused to step up and take responsibility. That is why is that one person is currently in the dock.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Belfast South)

Over the last number of months, there has been a campaign to blame this all on one person when all the evidence is patently, absolutely patently, to the contrary and suggests that this was a failure of process. There are a number of ex-Ministers around the Chamber who know the way the process works, and if you have policy experts, an official energy team, a business case cleared and a set of recommendations that come to you as Minister, then Ministers need to be able to rely on that advice. Yes, question it, but we have a whole system in place to safeguard and question. If we cannot rely —

Jennifer Palmer (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Belfast South)

If we cannot rely on and have credible advice and recommendations coming forward, then we have to question why those people are there in the first place. There has been a problem with the process and we need to identify why. Blaming one person will not solve that. Sorry, Jenny.

Jennifer Palmer (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for giving way. Does she agree with me that, on building the electorate's trust in the Assembly, issues like no risk registers being identified, due diligence and good governance were all failures of the Assembly and the Executive in terms of the RHI scheme?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Belfast South)

You raised a very interesting point. Risk registers, single responsible owners and project management are not matters, to be honest, for the Executive or Ministers. Those are very much the part and process of departmental —

[Interruption.]

I am answering you absolutely honestly about this. In policy development within Departments, it is very rare. In fact, I know of very few, if any, examples of Ministers sitting on project boards for policy development or programme boards. A team of officials are put in place, a senior responsible owner (SRO) is identified and the risk register comes back to that project or programme board. In some cases, depending on the issue, a Minister might sit on a board, but, in my experience, the vast majority of project or programme boards do not include Ministers. It is very much part of the process of policy development to develop the policy, which is then put as recommendations to the Minister.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Belfast South)

Yes.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Does the Member not accept that major financial items would have been clearly indicated in a risk register that would have been brought to ministerial attention, particularly after the scale of the problem was highlighted to the Department of Finance? The Ministers of Finance would have known for some time that that was a huge item of risk that was not addressed. Multiple Members have been in that position.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Before the Member responds, I have to say that I have been very liberal on where the debate has been going. I ask that both questions and the Member come back to the regulations.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Belfast South)

Certainly. We had an emergency meeting of the Finance Committee last week, and also the scheduled meeting on Wednesday. Particularly in relation to the budget issue, we emphasised to the permanent secretary of the Finance Department that there must be a risk register and that that risk register must identify all risks. It is clear from the evidence to the PAC that there was not a risk register in this case. The responsibility for that risk register, in terms of project management, lies with what is referred to as an SRO. For project management and development, an SRO is always an official. Questions need to be asked about why that did not happen, and I am sure that those issues are being reviewed by the Civil Service and the leadership within the Civil Service.

I want to be very clear that this is not a case of blaming officials entirely for this. I have indicated that there is a whole chain and a process, and those flaws were not identified by any of us as an issue throughout that chain and process.

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Belfast South)

Yes.

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

The Member quite rightly refers to good policy and good policymaking and business cases, and obviously good policy was not applied in this instance. Will the Minister talk directly to the motion that is front of us and the regulations? Will she explain to the House why she is asking us to depart from good lawmaking, without a business case and the necessary statutory requirements that would constitute good lawmaking? Why, in this instance, does she think that bad policy should be followed by bad legislation?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for my promotion; I am not the Minister in relation to this. I will come to that, and I will come back to speak about the regulations. I just wanted to set out the context. I will refer to that in due course. If the Member wants to make a specific intervention at that point, I will be happy to take it.

I have outlined the process that got us to the original policy proposal. Objectively — I say this absolutely honestly — it is in the interests of everybody around the Chamber to find out what happened. An inquiry will do that, and lessons must be learned about that, but there are additional issues. On what has been discussed, we need to find out what happened with the emails from the whistle-blower. We have to find out what procedure was activated. Did officials take it seriously? What follow-up did they do? What process was subsequently followed? What information did the Minister get about that? Those are all additional questions that an inquiry will have to look at. An inquiry must examine all the issues. That is the other part of the essential work that needs to happen here, alongside these regulations and the roll-out of the policy.

At the heart of the regulations is the principle of fairness. I welcome the proposals. The Minister confirmed that they have been scrutinised legally. They attempt to ensure fairness and to bring the scheme back to the original policy intention. That is clearly in the public interest. I welcome the time-limited nature of the regulations; that allows some time for analysis to ensure that the proposed 12% return is indeed fair.

We have heard over the last week concerns expressed — legitimately, one assumes, in terms of the RHI scheme — about a reduction in the tariff. That is why it is important to emphasise, as the Minister has done, that at the very heart of this is fairness. It is not that there will be no incentive. This is bringing the scheme back to the original policy intention to ensure that there is an incentive, but that it is fair and proportionate and that the use of funds is in the public interest. That is the right approach. It is only for 12 months. I am sure that the Minister will speak to this in due course in relation to a review, which will inform the process and the further roll-out.

The aim of this is not only to be fair but to bring down, insofar as possible, through these regulations and the further steps — I welcome that the Minister has been very confident about this — the cost of RHI to the Northern Ireland taxpayer to as close as possible to 0%. There is a great deal of concern out there about the figures of £400 million to £500 million of public funds. We have sought to assure people that, yes, that is contractually committed; however, we will do all in our power to bring it down as close as possible to no liability to the Northern Ireland taxpayer. That money has not been spent. That is the critical issue: the money can be mitigated; it can be prevented from going out the door in a way that is fair and in the public interest.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. The Member will be aware, of course, that we have managed to spend £30 million this year alone and are spending £85,000 a day. There is no business case or business plan. Indeed, we also have legal opinion that the plan may be subject to challenge. How does the Member tie that in with what she has just said?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. The Member was maybe too busy chairing the Committee this morning and did not hear the permanent secretary when he said that there was a business case and that, in his view, it ticked all the boxes in terms of value for money, regularity and propriety. Those are already there, and there is a business case. Is it not a bit misleading for the Member to suggest otherwise?

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

[Interruption.]

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

No, I ask the Member to resume his seat.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Mr Speaker, I am sure that I will have your indulgence as Deputy Chair of the Economy Committee.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I ask the Member —

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Members for their interventions. It is rarely possible —

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Belfast South)

I want to respond to your initial question first. It is rarely possible to design something in such a way as to fully eliminate the risk of legal challenge. If you try to do something different or bring forward something new, often people will say, "There is a risk of legal challenge". In this case, it is particularly challenging; there is no doubt about that. A contract is in place. We must all remember that contracts can be broken, but only where that is fair and proportionate. I would argue very strongly that in this case it is fair, proportionate and, most importantly, clearly in the public interest. In my view, yes, there will always be the risk of legal challenge, but the more important question is this: what is the risk of successful legal challenge? People can take a case. There will be people who will challenge anything worth doing in the public interest on this matter. There is no predicting what a judge may do: we have seen cases in recent years where a judge has perhaps gone in a direction not predicted by legal advisers, not least in relation to roads and infrastructure when the Ulster Unionist Party held the DRD post, and there has been a surprising outcome. There is a risk of challenge; you cannot predict what a judge will do in that situation, but I welcome that the Minister outlined that his legal team has scrutinised this in great detail. He has received legal advice that, although there may be a risk of legal challenge, this — in the view of the Minister, which he has outlined, and in my view from looking at it — gives us the strongest possible legal defensible position in terms of breaking those contracts.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Belfast South)

Yes.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you very much indeed for those comments. For clarity, the fact is that the business case has not yet been passed by the Department of Finance. Our advice is very clear: the risk for this entire process lies with the Minister and nobody else.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Belfast South)

It is disappointing that the business case has not yet been cleared. That is not unusual. I am sure that all of us on Committees have looked at these processes. The leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, having been Chair of the OFMDFM Committee, will have questioned officials about the business case process on many issues. It can be frustrating how slow that process is. However, the business case process has been looked at by officials in the Civil Service. I suspect very strongly that if they are taking legal advice about this, they will be taking it from the Departmental Solicitor's Office. I assume — perhaps the Minister will confirm this for me in due course — that the Department for the Economy is taking advice from that same team of lawyers, so I would like to think that, in that situation, the legal advice will be consistent. The legal advice very clearly here appears to be that there is a strong defensible case to break the contracts in that way and put a variation in them to ensure that there is still a return. This is absolutely important: there will still be a return for people of, as the Minister outlined, 12%. That still represents an incentive.

If, over the next 12 months, there are cases, quirks or issues of some form of unfairness that emerge from businesses that have partaken in the scheme, those can, because this is only a 12-month scheme, be fed into the design process for the longer-term or permanent arrangements. That is the right thing to do.

I am disappointed that the business case is not yet through, but I remain confident that it will be. The biggest issue is the legality of the variation of contracts. Presumably, advice will be sought from the same place that advised the Minister and the Department. That legal advice is informing the process; we heard in the Minister's opening comments that this will be a robust and defensible set of regulations.

I also welcome that the Minister outlined clearly that it is not the case that no action has been taken up to this point. It is not the case that the regulations were just created over the course of the last number of days or weeks. He outlined a wide range of actions, including increased audit and investigation, and I think that all of us look forward to seeing the results of that; the changed scheme being implemented and then closed to new applicants; and the now recalibrated cost-control proposals contained in the regulations. I think that all of us would have liked to have seen the issues being dealt with more swiftly, but I welcome the fact that — this is absolutely essential, as was previously outlined — this went through a process of official and legal examination, which informed the recommendations that were given to the Minister.

It is worth very clearly putting on record that, as I previously mentioned, the DUP aim in all of this — I would like to think that this is the aim of all of us in looking at these regulations, which is why I hope that they get the support of everybody around the Chamber — is to reduce to zero any cost to the Northern Ireland Budget. These measures are a critical step in that, sitting alongside the increased fraud and fair-usage investigations, which the Minister has outlined will happen.

I also outlined last week that I was saddened — I remain saddened — that this policy issue and the associated mistakes have brought us to this point. I said very clearly that — I think that all of us accept that this is true — mistakes happen. Our processes, teams and Committees are made up of fallible human beings. However, the design of our processes are as they are to try to pick those up. Our processes are designed to identify and refine policy and to examine it from every angle. However, when the safeguards failed — there is no doubt that they failed to pick up the issue in this case — we needed calm heads and a sensible approach to rectifying this.

We needed a mature, calm and appropriate approach that required two things. First, as soon as possible, we need an independent and robust inquiry capable of getting to the truth of what went wrong, and I welcome that that is happening. That inquiry must and will report as soon as possible. Secondly, we need regulations to be brought forward to reduce to zero, as far as possible, any cost to the Northern Ireland public purse. I welcome that that is the other critical step that is happening today.

I strongly do not believe that the stepping-aside issue should have brought about the situation in which we find ourselves. I do not believe that Sinn Féin is justified in doing what it has done, without a Budget and any contingency planning or preparation, in bringing down these institutions and the people serving in the Chamber who were democratically elected just seven months ago. There were a number of different ways this could have been approached. Sinn Féin argues that this election is about arrogance and corruption, but the inquiry has not yet happened. There have been no findings of incompetence or corruption. The evidence of officials counters any allegations of wrongdoing, never mind corruption, and to quote from and reference the permanent secretary of DETI in his evidence to the PAC, in his view, Arlene Foster did nothing wrong. The inquiry will look at all that, and once it does and conclusions are drawn, that will be the time for action, but to prematurely bring down these institutions and fling around words such as "corruption" is wrong and unjustified.

All that is set beside the incredible position of Sinn Féin. Gerry Adams just last week put up a video on the upcoming election in which he said that it is about "accountability in public life". I find that absolutely astounding from a party, members of which have yet to apologise for the murder and maiming of thousands — yes, that extends to Sinn Féin, because I look across to those Benches week in and week out and see people with convictions in relation to those issues, and we have yet to hear an apology for that.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I will interrupt the Member and say that she is straying too far from the debate on the regulations. I ask the Member to come back to the debate.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Belfast South)

I will not ponder that point for too long, but there are a series of issues that have come up. Where they are relevant to the regulations is that this is what we need to do whenever we face challenges and difficulties. We need to bring forward solutions through policy, we need to address the issue, we need to protect public funds and we need to do what is right for people in Northern Ireland. There have been a number of hurdles and a number of scandals on all sides about some issues that have subsequently been investigated while others have been left out there. I do not believe that any one party is coming to the electorate with clean hands and able to say certain things, which Sinn Féin is trying to, while throwing a lot of dirt before an inquiry has been heard. I think that is absolutely critical.

Before I finish, I want to say that I have been an MLA for just over a year. Seven months ago I was hugely humbled to be elected to serve the people of South Belfast. I made some reference to the fact that there will be many people around the Chamber who will not be coming back to serve their constituents and the people of Northern Ireland. I remain absolutely committed to doing what is right for Northern Ireland, to working as hard as I can, which I will continue to do right up until the election, and to giving my support in all this to try to find the right solutions for everybody. I am saddened that, at times and reflecting over this, there has been a lot of party politics played. I think that is not good for the people of Northern Ireland. I think we need to rise above that, we need to be objective, we need to look at the evidence and we need to be fair. I think that, if we do those things, every single party across the Chamber should support the regulations today and we should ensure, as far as we can, that the taxpayer and public purse in Northern Ireland do not pay out anything more than they have to through the opportunity that is being provided to us today. As we move forward, regardless of whether I come back here, I am committed to working to build a better and a shared Northern Ireland. I will continue to do that in whatever role I play, but I hope that everybody in the Chamber commits to that and works together today and moving forward to try to ensure that we build a better Northern Ireland.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Let me assure you, Mr Speaker, that I will stick very tightly to the issue of the regulations. After all, the Member who has just spoken gave a devastating critique of the failure of the so-called Fresh Start Executive, so my work in that regard is done. I thank her for that.

I begin by assuring the House that the Ulster Unionist Party will not stand in the way of any initiative that is designed to stem the haemorrhaging of public money through the fatal flaw in the renewable heat incentive scheme. As the person who last Monday proposed the adjournment of the debate for seven days, I think that it might be worth going back over the rationale for doing that, which is that I was concerned that there were several key areas in which we lacked maximum certainty. I also put on record that, in using Standing Orders to try to get the adjournment, I did not try to blindside the Minister. In fact, he can confirm that Danny Kennedy and I went to see him in his office some time before last week's debate began. He greeted us very courteously. He was there with a witness, John Robinson, before John recused himself from these issues. I told him what I was proposing and suggested that he contact the Northern Ireland Office. I believed that, if he did, he would be given certainty that we would still be around today. He chose to go ahead with the debate anyway, and, at around 5.30 pm, when the Secretary of State made his announcement on the date of the election — 2 March — and the dissolution of this mandate, I, as you know, got to my feet and proposed the adjournment. It is a matter of regret that it had to be done in that way, but it was the right thing to do, because it gave us seven days.

I was clear to the Minister about the assurances that we were looking for in order for us to be able to back the regulations. First, we had not heard from the Examiner of Statutory Rules, who is the person who takes the technical and legal look at such legislation on our behalf. Secondly, the Minister had been to the Economy Committee earlier last Monday, but, at the conclusion of the meeting, the Committee chose to note rather than support the regulations, on the basis that it had had insufficient time to scrutinise fully what was being proposed.

The third issue that I thought critical was the lack of a business case, and the Minister made it clear that he was working on one, but there was no assurance given to the Committee about it. The fourth and final point that I raised at the time concerned the European Union. The Examiner of Statutory Rules makes very clear in her report that the regulations will not necessarily begin on 1 April 2017. They will begin either on that date or on the date on which the European Union gives its consent to them. Of course, that could be some time after 1 April, with £85,000 a day being burnt off in the meantime.

Let us go over the four areas. In the past seven days —

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. I ask him to curb his language and maybe the reckless tone. He talks about money being "burnt off". There are many, many credible businesses using the scheme legitimately. Many of them are in his constituency, as there are in mine and everyone else's, and they are using the incentive scheme for legitimate environmental purposes. They bought into it in good faith.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his intervention, and he is absolutely right. One of the great shames of this debacle — when I use potentially emotive words, I am being careful, and "debacle" is the word that the First Minister used in the House to describe the scheme. The Member is quite right. Yes, there are, and I have been speaking to constituents of mine who are signed up to the scheme. I put it to the Member in this way. Over the weekend, his colleague the Member for South Down had to go to the media and say that a number of his relatives are availing themselves of the renewable heat incentive scheme.

Does that not imply that there is some sort of innuendo against those relatives when all they have done is sign up for a scheme? In fact, if it were not for the fact that they are related to Mr Wells, nobody would have a focus on them. That is why, as a party, we have called for those relatives to have their boilers fast-tracked to the top of the list for an audit. If they have done nothing wrong, let us immediately or as soon as possible clear their name and let the public know that they are simply availing themselves of the scheme that was put before them. That should be the case with anybody who comes into the public domain simply because they are related to an elected representative. I absolutely agree —

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his patience and his indulgence. I hear what he says, and I agree with the sentiments. Will he also agree with me that businesses have already been tarnished in the media in connection with the scheme when they should not have been? When that has been highlighted, it has been called "scandalous" and "sensational", but, as he well knows, when there has to be a retraction in the media, whether in print or on TV, it is a small section with an apology. Will he acknowledge that?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Again, I thank the Member for his intervention. I have 100% no difficulty in acknowledging that. There is an expression that we all know: mud sticks. It is unfair. Let us look at what was done. There was a fatal flaw in the scheme, and we know that now. The impact of that fatal flaw has been that some individuals and some companies have had a shadow cast over them. There is an allegation, there is innuendo and there is a bad smell. That is to be deeply regretted. We must do what we can to assist in putting their good name back into good standing.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. Will he not agree that, if businesses come forward from the outset and say that they have availed themselves of RHI and explain how and why they are using it legitimately, it could, pardon the pun, take some of the heat off them? I think that you are being much more generous to Mr Wells than you would have been had the media found out what the situation with his family was, rather than him coming forward.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I will not comment further on Mr Wells because I do not think that it is fair to relatives to be put into the public domain simply because they are related to somebody who sits in the House.

On the other matter about companies coming forward, I noted over the weekend that the other unionist Member, as it happens, for South Down was doing something different. He was getting an answer to a pertinent question that reveals that, I think, 62% of applicants to the scheme were not applying for a replacement boiler so that they could migrate from oil or gas to biomass, which is renewable: 62% did not have heating in the first place. They were new installations, and this question must be asked: how does that help the environment? Even though the new installations are environmentally friendly compared with gas and oil, how does it help the environment when we are putting in even more heating installations? I will give way to the Member for East Belfast.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. I share his concern, although I would temper it with this: it happened at a time when, for example, Moy Park, was going through quite a large expansion, so some new installations will have been for new sheds that were being built for the expansion of the business. A proportion of them will have been, if you like, genuine new heating installations that would have been happening anyway, but the Member is absolutely right when he says that he wants to know how many fall into each category.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for her intervention. I will let the point rest because I promised the Speaker that I would stick as tightly as possible to the regulations. We may be straying a tad.

Some of the four points were directly within the gift of the Minister to action over the last seven days; others are not. For example, the Examiner of Statutory Rules will take the time that she needs to take, but she has now reported. I do not think that anybody in the Chamber, having read the Examiner's report, could put their hand on their heart and say that she is happy. She might be content — just about content. She certainly makes it clear, to my mind, that a judicial review — a legal challenge — is pretty much inevitable. We know of that grouping or that sort of consortium of RHI users who are getting very well organised and have made it clear that they will seek a judicial review of what is going on, and the concern has to be that it could end up actually costing the public purse more. The £85,000 a day continues to have to be spent if they are successful with their judicial review, and then there is the cost of the review itself. Also, there is the issue of whether it is compliant with human rights.

We will listen to the Minister very carefully because we certainly do not want to stand in the way of any worthwhile attempt to stop the haemorrhaging. We will listen carefully for his assessment of the report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules. She has made it clear that, with limited opportunity for scrutiny, it is effectively impossible for any of us in the Chamber to take a definitive view on the regulations.

I listened to the permanent secretary, Dr Andrew McCormick, who was at the Committee earlier today. He was saying, effectively, that what we have here is the best available. That is very different from saying "good", "sound", "solid" or "as good as it gets" — in the context, this is the best available. That is a fair assessment, and I think that Dr McCormick has done more than anybody whom I have heard over the last number of weeks to maintain the integrity of the devolved institutions. I thank him for that.

Today, the Committee had the opportunity to shift its position from having noted the regulations to approving them but did not do so. The Minister did not turn up. Again, we will certainly listen carefully to Mr Hamilton to hear why he was not able to attend Committee today. Surely, if we are looking for a consensual way forward, the Minister would have made time for his Committee. But, let us not prejudge: we will wait and hear what the Minister has to say.

Then, there is the business case, and we look to the partners of the DUP in government: Sinn Féin. From what I hear, the business case is stuck in the Department of Finance. The Department of Finance could have come to the House and told us that the business case was fine and we could move forward. It had a week, but what happened over that week seemed to be that the two Departments — Economy and Finance — were in a race to see which could be first to commission an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005.

I have to put it on record that, bizarrely, I was contacted by representatives of both Ministers and was unable to take the call directly on both occasions. When the Finance Minister's people contacted me, I was at an event on Saturday and was not able to reply for several hours. There was no harm done because that was on Saturday and he wanted a meeting on Monday. Before that, representatives of Minister Hamilton contacted me on Thursday. I was unable to directly respond to that call because I was at a funeral. By the time I responded, the meeting that they had wanted me to attend to discuss the Department for the Economy bringing forward an inquiry had already begun; indeed, as I later learned, the Finance Minister had already got to the point of announcing an inquiry. It is a matter of regret, but, for the record, that is why I did not attend the meeting that the Economy Minister wished me to attend on Thursday to discuss the possibility of him bringing forward an inquiry.

My fourth and final point is with regard to the European Union. As the Examiner of Statutory Rules made clear, the regulations, if approved, will not necessarily kick in on 1 April because they also need to be approved by the European Union. Specifically, we have to know if they are compliant with article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

In the last seven days, I have not heard any opinion coming from the Department, and I do not believe that the Committee has been given any assurances in that regard. So, once again, we will listen to the Minister to see if there is certainty. It is a lack of certainty that we are trying to address. For that reason, I thought that a gap of seven days would be useful. We have come to the end of the seven days, and very little additional certainty has been added, so we will listen to the rest of the debate and, particularly, to the words of the Minister.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. I will begin by welcoming the regulations that we have in front of us this afternoon. I also welcome the opportunity that we had over the last week as a Committee to look at them in more detail and to be able to get evidence from the Renewable Heat Association and from the permanent secretary of the Department for the Economy. I believe that those discussions were useful, and I believe that we are better informed now than we were seven days ago. However, it is clear that the regulations will significantly reduce the cost of the renewable heat incentive scheme in the next financial year and will effectively keep us within the original budget. This is what the public want to see.

We are all aware of the public concern, the public interest and, indeed, the public anger in regard to the issue, and I am pleased that progress is being made on instilling confidence in the public, or reinstating the public's confidence once again, because of the public inquiry that has been announced. That is very welcome, and I will not stray into those issues, other than to say that it is welcome that that is happening.

The other thing that the public want to see is cost controls. Most of the public anger in relation to this issue has come from the fact that this has the potential to have so much of an overspend on our Budget, and there are concerns in relation to allegations of fraud and, indeed, overcompensation as well.

It is important for us to remember that being a recipient of the scheme does not mean that the recipient has been doing or is doing anything wrong. Legitimate applicants should not have their reputations tarnished or their integrity questioned. It is very important that we put that on the record again. However, the way in which the uptake of the scheme developed has meant that action needs to be taken so that we can avoid further negative implications for our Budget in years to come. The regulations —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Briefly, yes.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member acknowledge that the cost of the scheme — £25 million to £30 million a year — was fully known over a year ago? Can he explain why the current proposals, which have only been out a matter of days, were not brought forward one year ago so that there could have been full scrutiny and a much higher level of certainty going forward as to what the implications of such legislation might be?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

That question was asked this morning at the Economy Committee, and the permanent secretary answered that there had been various plans and different proposals being considered in the Department, but this was the one that has come now. I will come on to this in just a second, because I think that it is important that we take the time to get this right, which is one of the reasons why I think that it is correct that there is a one-year interim solution to this, and then we will have time for a longer-term scheme to be addressed after that.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. On the point that the other Member raised, does the Member not realise that it was brought up last year in this very House, when the then Minister, Jonathan Bell, came here to close the scheme? He would have been fully aware at that time of why the scheme had to be closed, because the then Minister, Jonathan Bell, talked about that very thing.

Of course, Members across the Chamber will know how they voted or did not vote on closing the scheme. To say that we were not aware is completely untrue. If people came to this only in late autumn, that says more about them than it does about the Assembly.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I think that he sat down just in time before he received a rebuke from the Speaker.

We want a solution to this; we want to be able to control the costs of it. In order for us to do that properly over the long term, it is right that we have something in place now that can deal with the next financial year. The regulations address the worst excesses of the scheme and that which has been the cause of so much public concern and anger and potential negative consequences for the Executive. The regulations are for one year only. They are an interim solution, but they have the potential to save £28 million. We have also been told in our briefings from the Department that those savings could be even greater, depending on improved enforcement and the different attitudes that users take with regard to changed behaviour. There is a sunset clause in the regulations as well. That is appropriate. The right steps have been taken in the way in which these have been brought in as a short-term measure. They will give us the extra time that Members, the Department and the Renewable Heat Association are looking for so that we can address this better in the longer term. Nobody in the House believes that the regulations are the perfect solution to the problems that we face. A delay in the debate for a week —

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I will just finish the point first. A delay of a week has allowed us additional scrutiny, but it is, obviously, not the type of scrutiny that we should be accustomed to in the House. However, it is action for the next financial year, and that is important.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. I invite the Member to concur with me to the House that, under scrutiny by the Committee, the permanent secretary has suggested that potentially the more favourable approach in the long term, subject to public consultation, may be the run-on of the current approach. Again, that raises the question of why it did not come forward sooner, but I invite the Member to recognise that there is a view amongst departmental officials at this stage that this may be the preferred approach, subject to consultation ratifying that over the next 12 months.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Of course, that is the important point: it is subject to consultation. The Renewable Heat Association, when it was before the Committee last week, made the point that it wanted to have more consultation before a final decision was made on the longer-term programme. It was the view of the permanent secretary, I believe — I hope that I am not misquoting him — that it provides the basis for where we go in the future. That is the point of a consultation: we do not predetermine anything, and we allow opportunities for people to have their say. If better options come to the fore, we will look at them and accept them.

I want to mention briefly some of the conversations and discussions that we have had in the Committee for the Economy about the regulations. I begin by thanking the Clerk and his staff for the work that they have done over the past number of weeks. They have put in a lot of work to organise extra meetings and give us the opportunity to have a greater look at what the regulations say and what they will mean.

When the Minister appeared before the Committee last week, he indicated that the regulations were right for us to support because they would, first, address the worst excesses of the scheme, relieve the pressure on the budget and support those who applied legitimately. Those are the things that should guide our thoughts at this time; in particular the public interest in the money that would be spent if we did not take any action. It is important that we reiterate that doing nothing is not an option.

I also thank Dr McCormick for his appearances before the Committee, because we gleaned an awful lot of useful information from him. I want to set out some of the things that he said to us. He was very clear that he has an obligation, as the accounting officer for the Department, to sort this out and to make sure that he keeps his books balanced. He said that there was no quicker or better option. He said that the public interest was not served well by the current tariffs. He said that the regulations were a very defensible, very viable set of proposals and were:

"the only means available to stop a haemorrhaging of funds."

He said that it was a very strong option and that the rationale for supporting them was clearly there. His evidence made clear to us the importance of getting cost control measures in place and the detrimental effect that doing nothing would have; indeed, if the regulations are not brought in, we will have to look at finding the money from elsewhere, perhaps from the Department for the Economy's budget. We know it has many other priorities, such as Invest NI, higher education, skills and promoting our country through tourism, so we need to be realistic as we meet here today. We do not have the comfort of being able to say, "Well, I do not really like the regulations, so we will do nothing". Doing nothing has serious consequences as well.

It is also useful for us to take evidence from the Renewable Heat Association. It was clear that they had a considerable interest in these issues. When questioned, it was clear that they did not have an alternative option that could begin to deal with the issue in this financial year. They were talking about options that would be further down the road but would not address the initial overspend that we would face or the implications that that would have for the Department for the Economy's budget and, perhaps, other departmental budgets. I also asked members of the association if they believed that a rate of return of 50% or 60% or even 70% was excessive. I asked that question a number of times, and I do not think anyone was able to give a straight answer.

Their main point was that there should have been greater consultation on the regulations. Obviously, because of the time pressures we are under, that was not an option for us. We know that, because of the actions of Sinn Féin, the Assembly will not be in existence after Wednesday. We do not have the luxury of taking more time, if we want to deal with this situation and if we want to make sure there is not an overspend in the next financial year, this needs to be dealt with now. Mr Aiken, who is not in his place, said that this was costing £85,000 every day. If we are concerned about that loss of money to other priorities, if we want to see cost control measures brought in, if we want to ensure that the issue is addressed and tackled and if we want the public to know that there will not be an overspend of the magnitude that had been reported, we need to support the regulations; indeed, it is the only show in town. It is, as the permanent secretary has said, the best available option. That is why it is right as well — we say this again — that it is a one-year scheme that gives us the opportunity to further consider this.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank Mr Lyons for giving way. On the fact that time constraints did not allow for a proper consultation period, the regulations will not take effect until 1 April: does he agree that that would have allowed time for a consultation, even if it had had to be foreshortened?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

It would allow time for consultation but absolutely none to get the regulations passed in the House. Tomorrow or possibly Wednesday, if there were to be a special sitting of the Assembly, is D-Day, and that is it. The opportunity would be gone for us. That would mean, in effect, that consultation would be worthless. That addresses the point that the Member makes.

I hope that Members will support the regulations. Claire Hanna, who spoke at the beginning of the debate last week, set out her position, but what was lacking from it was a clear alternative. What else do we do? It is clear to Members that we either support the regulations or allow that overspend. So many people across the country and so many in the Chamber have spoken out against this and have been so angry about it. Failure to support the regulations will allow that to continue in the next financial year. I do not think that that would be appropriate or that it is what anybody wants to see happen.

So much of the debate on the issue over the last number of weeks has been about trying to hurt or damage Arlene Foster in some way. Mr Allister's point, when he accused my colleague Mrs Little Pengelly of trying to shift the blame and trying to smear others, was very telling, because I think that that is what he and others are trying to do: they are trying to smear Arlene Foster. When he said to stop trying to smear others, it revealed what he was really doing.

I hope that Members, on this occasion, will put party politics to the side. An election is coming up, and we will have lots of time for all that stuff. Right now, the position that we are in requires action, and that is why it is important that the regulations are supported. That is what I hope Members will do.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Before I call Ms Sinéad Bradley, I remind her that Question Time is at 2.00 pm, and I may need to interrupt her if she is continuing to speak. She will, of course, be called to speak after Question Time.

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that.

I was hopeful that the extension of seven days from last week's debate would offer a genuine opportunity for those focused not just on an inquiry but on trying to stop the haemorrhage of public money that should and could be spent on better things, such as hospitals and education — and I could go on. I hoped that that would happen, but, at the outset, I register my disappointment that former members of the Executive and the Committee from Sinn Féin chose not to attend Committee meetings to discuss this point. It is particularly difficult to witness that at a time when they are otherwise very busy on the air waves, trying to play the blame game and essentially rushing to the front line to get the headline.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I will.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I hope that the Member for South Down is not suggesting for one second that the Minister of Finance is some sort of vainglorious person who loves media attention.

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I would never dare make such an assertion.

It is particularly disappointing because there are clearly two bodies of work at play here. It is in everybody's interest that the truth — who knew what, when and what exactly happened — comes to light. Only in that coming to the public light will lessons be learned from this. There is the second body of work, for which there appears to be little to no appetite. I say that across political parties and the media. If my house were on fire, would I put out the fire and then investigate how it started, or would I investigate it while the fire was raging? What has been happening in the House is that the DUP/Sinn Féin Executive, behind their iron curtain of politics, which has set a tone not befitting the Good Friday Agreement or any politics going forward, have watched the fire rage.

Nobody saw fit to ask, "Should we be putting this out?".

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Yes, I will give way.

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

The Member will be aware of the continued attempts by Members to my right to create the fallacy that the SDLP is in some way solely responsible for the botched scheme and voted for it. Will the Member please put on record the actual facts and truth?

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

As in voting to keep it open.

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Absolutely. It is the single red herring that Sinn Féin has left to hide its blushes.

[Interruption.]

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

We all know that, at that time, it was the legitimate scheme that should have been produced and laid out at the outset. Had that been the case, we may have had a very good scheme in place, but that was not the case. That is the little fig leaf that Sinn Féin will no doubt use to try to hoodwink and convince the electorate that it somehow had no duty over its mandate in the Assembly to do anything, which was, essentially, to stop the haemorrhaging of public money.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I will give way very happily, because I have not heard from you in over two weeks on the issue, when you had the opportunity, so I am minded to be brought up to date on your thinking.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I appreciate that the Member was not here last February, so she had no role in the last discussions, but she needs to be aware that her party voted against the proposal to close the scheme in February 2016. That is the reality; that is a fact. You can say all you want about it, but you and the Ulster Unionist Party voted against the closure of the scheme, despite repeated warnings about the cost that would be accrued and lost to the public purse. Your party voted against closing the scheme. Simple fact. You cannot get round that. I know that you were not here at the time — neither was Justin — so it is not your fault, but your party as a party, and other Members who are still here and were here last year, voted against the closure of the scheme.

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Thank you, Mr Maskey, for that intervention. I thank you for saying that it is not my fault. You are right: I was not here. But you were here —

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Your Minister was in the Executive.

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

— so is it not shameful that you are dependent on a Member who was not present to clarify to you, who should know better, what happened?

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Your Minister was in the Executive.

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

The scheme that was voted on in February was the scheme —

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I ask the Member to resume her seat. I ask —

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Your Minister was in the Executive. What did he do? Nothing.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Mr Maskey, I ask you to refrain from speaking from a sedentary position.

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There has been a consistent pattern over the last fortnight of Sinn Féin Members heckling other Members from a sedentary position. Can you please advise them that, if they want to participate in the functions of the House, they can list their name and come to speak like every other Member who was elected here?

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I think that I have already dealt with the matter. The Member may continue.

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I will continue, and I will continue for the benefit of Mr Maskey in particular, who clearly does not understand the facts of the case. The amended scheme, which had tariffs and caps applied, was presented to the House in February. You are right: you were present; I was not. The Member might be disappointed to learn that this Member can read and take facts.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of information, Mr Speaker.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

There are no points of information in the Chamber. Remain in your seat.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Sorry. On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will the Member allow me to intervene?

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I will finish my point first for Mr Maskey's benefit.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

It is not for my benefit.

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Mr Maskey and his party might do well to revisit the Hansard report of that time. There you will find a very well-considered scheme that was measured and that, had it been used at the outset, would have led to an avoidance of the saga in front of us today. However, on that date, when SDLP Members presented themselves here, they, like other Members, were mindful that the quick execution and early closure of the scheme were placing legitimate businesses at risk, because people who had signed up to a very good, worthwhile scheme, at that stage —

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I will finish my point. They had signed up to a very good, worthwhile scheme at that time. Those businesses were in the process of realising orders coming into their business. They were in the process of installing boilers with — I repeat — the measures in place that should have been there from the outset. So, Mr Maskey, your little red herring has just died.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

What I suggest is that, if you cannot use facts, say nothing —

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will you give way?

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

— because it is not good enough to come here and just use interventions —

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member has indicated that she is not giving way.

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

— to try to somehow undermine me by saying, "You were not here; your knowledge base would not be quite the same as mine". Well, Mr Maskey, my knowledge base is based on fact, not on spin and not on trying to somehow deceive the electorate by saying that you had no part to play in this.

Quite frankly, while we are at it, we will ask this question: why did Sinn Féin not want a public inquiry? What was the reason? Why was there an extended delay in this? A suspicious mind might think, "Maybe there is something that Sinn Féin is a little bit uncomfortable with and which could be laid bare", and imagine if that were to happen on the eve of an election. Sinn Féin's position on this appears to be, "Let's just get the votes in first and get to the facts later".

I will use my opportunity to inform you further, Mr Maskey, of what happened today at the Economy Committee, which you chose not to be present at. Legal advice was brought to the Committee. A legal pathway was set out that the Minister could pursue with these regulations and an amendment to them. It was set out how that might be possible. The problems and areas that we may have reason to have concern about were also set out quite clearly. Also presented to the Economy Committee was the legal pathway that the recipients of RHI funding could pursue through the courts. There were very clear indications that, equally, they have a pathway to follow up on if their contracts with the Department were not being honoured. I have no doubt that it is not the job of the House to judge or measure which of those two legal pathways holds the most weight, but, equally, I have no doubt about the decision being presented to us today. I have no doubt that a judicial review is highly likely, and it has been made clear to us why that is highly likely. Let it be placed on the record that nobody in the House believes that what is in front us of today is anything near perfect. In fact, in the week that is in it, many of the imperfections were highlighted.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

May I interrupt the Member at this stage? Before we go to Question Time, I need to deal with a point of order raised by Mr Dickson. Does the Member wish to continue her contribution to the debate after Question Time?

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

The Member most certainly does.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

The debate stood suspended.

Assembly Business

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I return to a point of order made by Mr Dickson first thing this afternoon. The Executive Office issued a statement on Friday relating to the historical institutional abuse inquiry report, which I have now seen. I understand that the statement was made by a spokesperson on behalf of the Department and does not represent the ministerial view. I am not convinced that that answers the Member's query about the origin of the statement, and I encourage him to take it up with the Executive Office if he has any further queries.

What I am able to say to him with some authority is that, under section 19 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and in accordance with Standing Order 45, junior Ministers are appointed by the First Minister and deputy First Minister, acting jointly, and they are allocated specific responsibilities. Under Standing Order 20, junior Ministers may respond to questions for oral answer in relation to those responsibilities, but the First Minister or deputy First Minister must be present at that time. In the absence of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, junior Ministers are, therefore, not able to answer questions in the Assembly today.

I ask Members to take their ease while we change the top Table.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker [Ms Ruane] in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions — Education

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

Tá an t-am ann do cheisteanna don Aire Oideachais. Tosnóimid le ceisteanna liostaithe. It is time for questions to the Minister of Education. We will start with listed questions.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

1. Mr Aiken asked the Minister of Education to outline the child protection protocols in place for pupils in schools. (AQO 945/16-21)

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for his question. Under articles 17 and 18 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, responsibility for child protection in schools falls to schools’ boards of governors. Schools, however, must have regard to guidance issued by the Department. The key document in this respect is 'Pastoral Care in Schools: Child Protection', issued under the DE circular 1999/10.

As that document explains, teachers and others working in the education services have a significant contribution to make to the safeguarding of children. All schools and colleges should create and maintain a safe environment for children and young people. Child protection protocols in schools should include the following: first, that school governors should ensure that their school has a child protection policy and procedures based on the guidance provided by DE and the education authorities; secondly, that, as part of these procedures, each school should have a designated teacher to whom all allegations or suspicions of child abuse should be referred for notification to social services; and thirdly, that all staff should be trained to be alert to the signs of possible abuse and know the action to take if they have concerns.

Schools do not have an investigatory role in relation to child protection concerns. There are protocols in place to refer concerns to the relevant agencies, most pertinently social services and the PSNI. The overarching policy framework and relative responsibilities across Departments and agencies for safeguarding children and young people is outlined in the Department of Health publication 'Co-Operating to Safeguard Children and Young People in Northern Ireland'.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

In the light of the recent sentencing of a man caught in possession of abuse manuals who was employed at a school to only 12 months' imprisonment and two years on licence, and who is now due to be released because of time already served awaiting trial, will the Minister outline what conversations he has had with the Justice Minister on this very serious issue?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I agree with the Member if the implication of his question is that the sentence, which in that particular case will outrage people, is too lenient. I have always supported mandatory sentences in these matters and I suspect that he will have a similar view. However, we also need to ensure that the judiciary takes these things seriously. There will always be some flexibility in that. It is important that the most vulnerable in our society, and schoolchildren in particular, are properly protected, especially when we are talking about abuse issues and abuse in schools, where there is a duty of protection in place. I share the Member's desire to see much tougher sentences arising out of this and it is something that needs to be progressed.

Carla Lockhart (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. Will he confirm to the House what the legislation is around this particular issue?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

There is a broad range of international and domestic child protection legislation relating to welfare. The principal domestic legislation is the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. It is the overarching piece of legislation, which sets out the requirements for professional practice in relation to children and young people and identifies the welfare of children as being of paramount importance, which is correct. It sets prevention and protection as two of the key principles.The Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, which now covers the Education Authority as well, places a statutory duty on boards of governors to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, to have a written child protection policy and to specifically address the prevention of bullying in schools. Obviously, on the issue of bullying, direct anti-bullying legislation was put through the House last year. The Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 also incorporated significant changes to the law on sexual offences to provide better protection for younger people from sexual abuse and exploitation. Finally, there is a requirement in the Children's Services Co-operation Act, which was passed through the House in 2015. It is:

"Every children’s authority must, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of its children functions, co-operate with other children’s authorities and with other children’s service providers in the exercise of those functions."

So there is an overarching bit to try to ensure that there is that cooperation, because this is not an issue that relates just to Education. There are also key implications, particularly, for Health and Justice. It is only by that level of key cooperation that we will start to tackle these problems.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

2. Mr Butler asked the Minister of Education for his assessment of the announcement by National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers that nearly 200 schools will be going on strike on 31 January 2017. (AQO 946/16-21)

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

3. Mr McPhillips asked the Minister of Education for an update on his Department's work with trade unions in relation to strike action. (AQO 947/16-21)

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I will answer questions 2 and 3 together because they relate to the same subject.

I am disappointed that the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) is engaged in ongoing industrial action. The recognised negotiating forum for teachers’ terms and conditions is the Teachers' Negotiating Committee (TNC), at which the Department is represented. The TNC is made up of representatives from the Northern Ireland Teaching Council (NITC), which comprises the five teaching unions, and management side, which comprises representatives from the Education Authority, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS), sectoral interests and the Department. Management side meets the Teaching Council regularly as part of its work on TNC and is committed to moving forward in a constructive fashion. Management side met the teaching unions 10 days ago, on 12 January, in relation to industrial action. I welcome the fact that that meeting was described by those involved as constructive. I understand that there was agreement to an exchange of discussion papers, with a further meeting scheduled for tomorrow. If we are looking for positives, it is at least a positive step that there is at least that engagement. I urge the teaching unions, which have taken, to be fair, slightly different attitudes to industrial action, to continue to get round to management side to focus on the issues for 2017 and beyond.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you for your answer, Minister. We welcome any ongoing talks. Can you outline any actions that you have taken to ensure that, in this crisis, teachers will be paid adequately and work under acceptable conditions, with a manageable workload and with the appropriate support to deliver education for our children and young people?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

There are a number of things in relation to that. Workload is a key issue that a lot of teachers have raised with me. That is why we sought suggestions from schools — and we are ending the collation of those responses — not simply on where there could be additional responsibility or opportunities for a greater level of flexibility for schools but about easing burdens. Particularly in a very tight financial situation, looking to where we can ease burdens on schools and teachers is vital. I am a little bit disappointed that, even among those unions that have taken the view of non-strike action, there is an impact in terms of non-cooperation with the inspectorate, because that can impact on pupils' learning.

As regards the broader financial situation, it is important that there is a focus on where we move on from 2017, because there is not a big pot of money sitting somewhere that is ready to be paid to make up for what has happened to date. I should also indicate that previous settlements included increments, which are no longer automatic in England. It is about trying to get a situation — tomorrow will hopefully be the first step in this — where people are looking forward rather than trying to resolve issues, some of which date back many years. Maybe that is a wider lesson for society in Northern Ireland.

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

Thanks to the Minister for his answers so far. Does he agree that the potential for a resolution on teachers' pay has been compromised due to the shenanigans in the Assembly, and is he confident that a resolution will be found post-election when he abandons his post?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I am not sure that "abandon" is quite the correct word on that side of things on it. Clearly, we have had issues around the broader perspective. The fact that the Executive have been collapsed by one party and that, in particular, it has been done ahead of any Budget settlement is not helpful to the overall situation. The opportunity for a greater level of resolution is that people look forward to 2017. It is not realistic to think that there is some big pot of money out there to cover the situation between 2015 and now or, indeed, to backdate that. It is also not simply a question of finding a one-off pot. If you make changes to the pay and conditions, that has a long-term impact on the school budgets and creates a level of pressure because it baselines within that. That must also be borne in mind. The opportunities for that will potentially be in looking forward to 2017. The reality is that, whether it is me or somebody else in post, the issues ultimately remain the same, and a belief that some change of personalities will suddenly make resolution very easy in many ways misunderstands the nature of the problem.

Danny Kennedy (Deputy Speaker, Newry and Armagh)

I ask the Minister to bear in mind and look closely at the work being carried out by the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) during this industrial action period, because a school in my constituency, Cortamlet Primary School, has been informed that a monitoring inspection —

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

Does the Member have a question?

Danny Kennedy (Deputy Speaker, Newry and Armagh)

— will take place tomorrow. Given that ETI will not be able to finalise a complete report because of the industrial action, will the Minister undertake to look at this situation to ensure that no school is left with an unsatisfactory finding and damage to the school's reputation as a result of —

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

I think that the Member has asked his question. I call the Minister.

Danny Kennedy (Deputy Speaker, Newry and Armagh)

— circumstances beyond its control?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

There may be certain things that are beyond my control as well in relation to that. It is unfortunate that a particular approach has been taken towards the inspectorate because that can be damaging to the school and to the reputation of the school. Let us remember that the inspectorate is not doing its work because it gets some sort of perverse kick out of this; it is doing it to try to ensure that we have proper standards in our schools. In certain regards, ETI is always a bit of an easy target on that basis on it. That non-cooperation is damaging, as I said, to our schools and to our children, and I urge all the unions and all teachers to fully cooperate with ETI. We need to see a degree of solution on this as well.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

In addition to teachers' pay, there is a wide range of issues facing education in Northern Ireland at the moment, including the suspension of the special educational needs (SEN) nursery review, the rejection of school budgets, proposed school bus charges, and most recently —

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

Can the Member come to his question?

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

— youth workers put on protective notice. As acting Chair of the Education Committee, I have invited the Minister to provide a fuller update on these issues this Wednesday at our Committee. Will he be able to attend?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Yes, I am happy to attend that. There may be a limited amount that I can directly say on a range of those issues. The broader budgetary situation will be the same for each Department, according to the way the rules work, assuming that we are not immediately seeing a resolution to all those issues. I will be happy to tackle in detail some of the questions that the Member has raised. In some cases, there has been talk of particular proposals when, in fact, no proposals have necessarily been made. I tried to comment today on an issue that had come up where, again, there was a degree of misunderstanding and, indeed, some — not in this House — make a level of political exploitation of that without knowing the facts on that basis on it, but it is important that we shed as much light as possible on that. It may well come up in other questions on it. In terms of reviews, consultations etc, anything that is coming back into the Education Authority is not in and of itself suspended, but the protocol is that you do not really perform consultations during an election period. He mentioned, for instance, the SEN review, and there are other reviews as well. Those are very important issues, and it is important that we get a proper focus on them so that there is no distraction. I am happy to come along to the Committee to answer questions, effectively on my own, on those issues. I will try to be as helpful as possible within the constraints of the level of knowledge that I have.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

What guidance have the employers issued to schools in relation to the proposed industrial action?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Obviously, guidance has been issued by employers — for instance, the Education Authority or CCMS — to boards of governors and school principals to assist schools in the face of escalated industrial action. It particularly advises school principals to consider contingency plans and to ascertain what the impact of the industrial action will be in the school to ensure that appropriate levels of supervision and support can be provided, to ensure accurate recording of attendance for pupils and staff and to consider the provision of home-to-school transport and school meals.

I would also indicate that, sometimes, when you drill down into figures of the impact of particular days of action, whilst some of them are geographically specific, it is not necessarily a universal position. Sometimes, it depends on which union is creating the industrial action and its level of strength within a particular school. Many schools have been able to carry on without particular impact, others have had to close the school for a day or a half day and others have had different regimes. There is slightly more of a spectrum of impact, rather than necessarily a full impact, on schools on any one occasion.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

4. Mr Douglas asked the Minister of Education for his assessment of the importance of community-based initiatives, such as EastSide Learning, in improving education outcomes for children and young people. (AQO 948/16-21)

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for his question. I believe that community-based initiatives are one of a number of factors that can help improve educational outcomes for pupils, particularly those from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. In my experience, irrespective of what community it is, getting a level of community buy-in is very helpful and significant.

The Every School a Good School policy highlights that a good school is one that is connected to its local community. I have met a number of community representatives and recognise the influence that they can exercise and achieve. I have encouraged the West Belfast Partnership Board and the other partnership boards, including the EastSide Partnership, to assist them to share the model of good practice. I also fund the West Belfast Partnership Board, the Greater Shankill Partnership and, indeed, Sure Start. All those can play an important role in the community in helping to tackle that key problem of educational underachievement.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his answer thus far. I would certainly concur that he has been very helpful with the various partnerships. I declare an interest as a member of the EastSide Partnership in east Belfast. The Minister is certainly aware of the issues surrounding underachievement, particularly for young Protestant boys. Will he outline what his Department is doing at the moment and maybe plans to do in the future?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

There has been much discussion about that. I welcome some of the improvements that have happened, but a lot more needs to be done to build on it. I produced a paper a short time ago, and we are looking at what we can do to implement that. In tough economic times, I have ensured that the money to fund things like targeting social need has been allocated directly to schools.

We need to take a more imaginative approach. We need to, for instance, focus on how we can imaginatively use the likes of social media. I would like to see a situation in the relatively near future, particularly in encouraging reading, in which we make use of local role models — that has happened at lower levels with the use of sports stars, who have tried to provide a degree of additional aspiration. Also, in the near future, I will be speaking at a conference on the issue of educational underachievement in Bangor that has been organised by a north Down group. That has been in track for a period of time.

It is about building a range of interventions. If a single intervention could sort out a lot of the problems, I think that it would have been done by now.

It is about getting the cocktail of measures that will work in an area and the community buy-in.

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

Many community initiatives are delivered by the Youth Service, and many youth workers across Belfast received protective notice this week because of a funding issue. I welcome the Minister's statement today —

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

I ask the Member to come to his question, please.

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

Can the Minister give some assurance that he will work with his Department to ensure that, if the money is made available in the budget, those people's jobs will be secure?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I think that would be the case. That was coming up under question 6. I thank the Member for raising the issue before we reach the 2.30 pm cut-off point.

There has been concern because a letter was put out by an EA official that is essentially protective notice. That is standard practice and happened, for example, two years ago when the budget was at issue because of the welfare situation. It is standard procedure when no budget has been set. Unfortunately, inferences have been drawn from that and, indeed, some have deliberately misinterpreted it. Let me be absolutely clear: first, there have been no cuts whatsoever to that budget; secondly, there has been no decision to make any cuts to it; and thirdly, there is no proposal or intention to make any such cut. That money is currently being allocated. I will have an opportunity to talk with the Committee as regards the wider situation. It appears likely that the budget will simply roll forward in the absence of a budget, which means that money will be spent in more or less the same way as before. This was a precautionary move that had to be taken and is in line with what happened in previous years. I want to give that reassurance because I understand that there is a lot of concern out there at present.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

How will the Minister support community childcare providers as the most cost-effective childcare option?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

We are working with childcare providers to get the biggest bang for our buck. Given limited resources, we always want to ensure the maximum provision with what we have. Our childcare strategy was ready to go to the Executive, but the Department will work with local childcare providers to provide help and support, as has happened until now.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The Minister has indicated the need to follow good practice. Can he confirm the total funding that his Department will award to the west Belfast Full Service Community Network education framework and whether he would consider similar funding for the EastSide Learning education framework in order that the good practice instilled in the west can be rolled out in the east?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I will write to the Member with the exact figures. We always want to get the best practice that is there. Obviously, any opportunity to roll out new initiatives, for example, is extremely limited, given the short time I have left in office. However, it is something that needs to be considered, if not by me, by my successors in title. The Member has put forward a reasonable suggestion.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

5. Mr Allen asked the Minister of Education to outline the percentage of pupils placed in their first preference preschool, primary and post-primary school in East Belfast. (AQO 949/16-21)

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for his question. I should explain that, while parents are able to nominate their preference for the preschool settings or schools they wish their child to attend, approved enrolment numbers mean that a child cannot in every case be guaranteed a place in a particular setting or school. Nevertheless, the figures for September 2016 admission, which have been provided by the Education Authority and are based on the position at the close of each admissions process, show that the vast majority of children in East Belfast were successful in gaining admission to their first preference.

I will drill down into the statistics. There were 1,106 available preschool places throughout East Belfast for this year. Preschool settings collectively received 1,068 applications, of which 937 pupils — about 90% — achieved places at their first preference setting. There were 1,207 places available in the primary sector. There were 1,094 primary applications, of which 1,021 applicants received places at their first preference. That equates to 93·3%.

Post-primary figures are as follows: 1,028 places were available and 1,025 post-primary applications were received, with 807 applicants receiving places at their first preference school. I emphasise again that these figures do not relate to children placed at one of the schools of their choice but at their first preference school.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, given the uncertainty at the prospect of the proposals in the draft area plan, will you outline what work your Department has undertaken to identify and address any shortage of school places in East Belfast to help to increase the prospect of children securing their first preference school and the school best suited to their needs?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

It is important that children get what is best suited to them. That does not always mean something entirely on their doorstep. The idea of area planning is to provide something strategic, and we will see a draft area plan that could lend itself to development proposals. While everybody's thinking on development proposals will always concern a new school, a school closure or a merger, they can also — this has happened on a number of occasions — relate to adjustments to enrolment. Development proposals can take a certain length of time. There is a provision — this has happened on a number of occasions — to allow temporary variations, which a school applies for. If there is a particular pressure, that can be met in that way.

The Department and, more specifically, the Minister sign off on a specific development proposal. The Department is not the initiator of a development proposal; it is for the Education Authority or another managing authority to initiate that. As I said, as has happened in a number of schools, there is an opportunity to ensure that that can be dealt with, which would at least provide for a temporary removal of constraints.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

Minister, are there any plans to revise the criteria for preschool admission?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Preschool education providers set admissions criteria. Research has shown that children in socially disadvantaged circumstances tend to experience more difficulty at school than other children, so the Department requires priority to be given to those children in the preschool setting as part of a wider effort. The aim is to ensure — to be fair, it is pretty close to being achieved — that there is at least a place for every child. Sometimes, there is still a disjoint from an area planning point of view; in certain parts of the country, you will have a high level of pressure on places and, in other areas, there will be a gap. It is important that the definition of children from socially disadvantaged circumstances in the required priority criteria is fit for purpose. It is probably timely that those are revised. If there is any revision, changes will be subject to consultation.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister very much for his answers so far. Does his analysis take into account the fact that integrated schools in the area are regularly oversubscribed, which means that parental demand for integrated education is not being met?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

As I said, there is an indication that, as part of this, we need to get a holistic view of the area plan. That is what we need to move ahead with; it will identify the needs, particularly for Belfast and East Belfast. One criticism that has been rightly made about area planning is that different sectors were moving at different speeds. The fact is that the controlled schools sector, CCMS, the integrated sector and the Irish-medium sector are all sitting around the same table trying to develop these proposals. Hopefully, that will produce a plan that is fit for purpose. If there are particular pressures on the integrated sector in East Belfast, those will be taken into account as part of an overall plan. It is important that we get the full jigsaw.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

6. Mr McCausland asked the Minister of Education how many youth workers are funded by the Education Authority in Rathcoole, Bawnmore and Glengormley. (AQO 950/16-21)

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

The Education Authority has confirmed that there are a total of 41 youth workers across the statutory provision in the three areas named. The figure is made up of 15 workers in the Rathcoole youth centre, including seven assistant youth support workers, five youth support workers, two support workers in charge and one area youth worker. There are a further 10 at Millgreen youth centre in Bawnmore and 16 youth workers in Glengormley youth centre. I can give the Member the breakdown of those if he so desires.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his answer and also for his answer to the earlier question regarding uncertainties with youth funding issues. I thank him for his clarification. What is his assessment of the value and benefits that flow from the work of those whom we are speaking about?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I think that there is a tremendous benefit, which is why the funding has consistently been put on a separate footing. Indeed, the EA has always sought to deliver that. This is targeted, especially in sometimes difficult areas, particularly at youth work with young people who are sometimes very hard to reach and whom other services are not really getting to. In society as a whole, youth work is key in preventing any potential problems that might arise and in preventing individual young people going in the wrong direction. The youth work provided is extremely valuable, and I commend those who are involved in it.

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

Sin deireadh na tréimhse do cheisteanna liostaithe. That ends the period for listed questions. Anois tá 15 bhomaite de cheisteanna tráthúla againn. Glaoim ar Alan Chambers. We will now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions, and I call Alan Chambers.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

Minister, as we head towards an election, no doubt you and the other candidates in North Down will be asked about the capital investment programmes that have been planned for Priory Integrated College in Holywood, St Columbanus' College in Bangor and Bangor Central Integrated Primary School.

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

Will the Member come to his question?

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

T1. Mr Chambers asked the Minister of Education for an update on some capital investment programmes. (AQT 676/16-21)

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

There are a number of issues there. I suppose that all politics is local, so the Member cannot be blamed for posing that question. Priory Integrated College and Bangor Central Integrated Primary School were part of the Fresh Start announcements. The project boards are moving ahead with those, that money is secure and the programmes will happen, irrespective of what the particular political landscape will be.

I have asked government whether some of the terms of the broader funding can be widened for St Columbanus' College. Its intake makes it what is sometimes referred to as a "super-mixed school", and it should be in a position to benefit from that. As yet, central government has probably been a little bit distracted with other issues, so I have not been able to secure a widening of the terms of reference. Also tied up with that was the examination of what could be done through the school enhancement programme, and it is likely that there will be an announcement fairly imminently on that. That is because we need to get moving with the school enhancement programme to ensure a proper flow of capital. I am acutely aware of the issues. No matter how things move ahead, capital will be available in the future. We have not yet been in the position to make a major capital call, but I think that there will be one very imminently on the school enhancement programme.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

Minister, is the money that you say is secured for two of the schools real money or is it subject to future budgetary constraints? Have you had any informal meetings with the schools about this?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I have been to a number of schools for meetings. I have been to Priory Integrated College and Bangor Central Integrated Primary School in relation to this issue. Their money is part of the Fresh Start money, which was £500 million allocated across a 10-year period, with a tranche of a maximum of £50 million a year. Those schools were announced as part of the first tranche of investments. As I said, the actions being taken are progressing along those lines, and the money is therefore secured, irrespective of what happens to the Northern Ireland block grant. Irrespective of what happens to any Northern Ireland Executive Budget, that is separate money that has been allocated by central government. It is secure money, they are announced projects and they are moving ahead. In the case of Priory, for instance, the first step is to ensure that it has a proper site. I think that a lot of us would have a fair guess at the answer to that. In that case, and probably for Bangor Central, the answer was fairly obvious, but that procedure needs to be gone through. The money is 100% secure and will not be impacted by wider budgetary positions. That is a bit of good news for the Member.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

Thank you.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

T2. Mr K Buchanan asked the Minister of Education whether he has received any feedback from school principals about the entitlement framework. (AQT 677/16-21)

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

This is a practical decision that was taken. We were getting messages, particularly from school principals and schools, that the scale of what was there was placing an onerous burden on them. Nobody doubts that we need to ensure that young people have the fullest opportunity, and we had that before the decision was taken. Subsequently, I have had feedback from a number of school principals who see this as a practical solution that has eased the burden on them in what are tight financial situations.

I know that a lot of schools are doing this already, but I take the opportunity to say that, particularly for its delivery and the delivery of subjects, the entitlement framework is a great vehicle for greater levels of cooperation, collaboration and sharing between schools. That is particularly the case with some minority subjects, on which you get two or three schools in the same town collaborating. I know that that happens in Bangor in my constituency among three of the schools. They are collaborating to provide that maximum level of opportunity. Generally speaking, I think that the announcement has been welcomed by school principals.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Is it part of a wider Education Authority policy?