Northern Ireland Assembly, 30 June 2020

467 contributions from 61 members. The official report.

Matter of the Day

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Mr John O'Dowd has been given leave to make a statement of condolence to the family of Noah Donohoe, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. Other Members who wish to be called should rise in their place and continue to do so. All Members who are called will have up to three minutes to speak on the subject. I remind Members that I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until this item of business is finished.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Thank you to the House for giving Members the opportunity to express their condolences on the death of young Noah Donohoe and to pass on their condolences to his mother, Fiona.

When news started to come through that a young boy was missing in north Belfast, people hoped that it would end up OK and that the young lad would be found, and our hopes and prayers were with him and his family. In a period when there has been so much bad news, sadness and grief in our community, Noah going missing caught people's attention, and the tragedy that unfurled before us is the nightmare of every parent. I am a parent of a young boy who is around the same age as Noah, and we all fear for their safety. We give them the freedom and the opportunities to go out and live their lives as best they can, but every parent fears that the circumstances that young Noah found himself in will come to their door. That is part of the reason why we have all taken a step back and had Noah in our thoughts since the announcement of him going missing and since the tragedy of his remains being found.

Noah's mother said that he would "change the world", and there is little doubt that he has changed all our worlds. Those photographs of him that beam out of our television screens and from the front of newspapers will be embedded in our minds forever. That infectious smile, that glint in his eye and the tributes paid to him by his friends, his school and particularly by his mother will live with us for a very long time.

I did not know Noah or his family, but it is only right and proper that the Assembly stops, takes a moment, and pays tribute to him and his parents. I also pay tribute to the emergency services, the search and rescue teams and all sections of the community who came together to help in the search for Noah. My thoughts and prayers are with them and with Noah's family.

With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I will mention a young boy who lost his life over the weekend in my constituency. Young Luke Lawson, a year 8 student at Lismore, died tragically over the weekend. Again, another nightmare for any parent. Our thoughts and prayers are with Luke's family as well. Thank you.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

On behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party, I extend our deepest sympathy to Noah's mother, Fiona, and the family circle. May God bless and sustain them in the days ahead. I also extend our sympathy to the principal, Dr Paul McBride, and the school family of St Malachy's College on the Antrim Road where Noah was a pupil.

This is a desperately sad situation. A 14-year-old boy, in the prime of his youth, taken from us far too soon. Noah Donohoe's disappearance united an, at times, fractured community in north Belfast. The many hundreds of volunteers who joined the search across the lower part of the constituency was a testament to that. They came from across the community and, indeed, some came from across the country, with the one aim of finding Noah and bringing him home safely to his mother and family. Sadly, on Saturday, we received the sad news that Noah had been found and his life had ended. It was the news that all of us feared, and none of us wanted to hear. The outpouring of grief was exemplified on Sunday evening at two services, one at Skegoneill and another on the Antrim Road outside his school, which ,again, united the community.

Noah was very clearly a special young man and has left a huge gap in the life of his family, his school and his school friends. He will never be forgotten. He has a special place in the minds and now in the lifeblood of north Belfast and its people. They have united in grief as they united in the search to find him.

I, too, join in the thanks to the emergency services. In particular, I thank Superintendent Muir Clark, who led the team in such a professional way, and all the officers from the Police Service of Northern Ireland for how they conducted themselves in such a committed, professional and dedicated way. I also thank Sean McCarry, the regional commander of the Community Rescue Service. Through the week, I spoke to Sean, and I spoke to him again on Sunday evening to thank him and his volunteers. They are all volunteers, and they came at all times of the day to search for Noah. They gave leadership. The community also gave leadership — as I said, at times, it is fractured — with many hundreds of people coming together. I joined the search for two evenings last week, and hundreds of people turned up at the Hubb. I want to thank the Hubb — Jim Crothers and his team — for the leadership that they gave. I also thank two of my party colleagues, Pastor Brian Madden and Councillor Dean McCullough, for their exemplary conduct and the role that they played.

Many people joined the search. It is a credit to that community and our city. I am deeply sorry about the outcome. I ask everyone to remember in prayer Noah's mother, his family and school friends in the days ahead. Thank you.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

No words that we say today will console Fiona Donohoe and Noah's family. The loss that they have suffered is simply unimaginable. John O'Dowd spoke eloquently about the fear that was struck into all parents and people who look after young people when they saw the news about Noah's disappearance. William Humphrey said, correctly, that everyone across this place longed for a positive outcome in the search for Noah. Indeed, people from across Belfast and across Northern Ireland went to north Belfast to look for Noah. I, too, pay tribute to the stellar work of the police and rescue services and to the work, commitment and sheer dedication of people from right across the community — people of different persuasions and none — who simply wanted to find a glorious, lost young boy and bring him home to his mother. Unfortunately, that did not happen, and all of us in this Chamber and across the community are devastated by the news that we heard on Saturday. Our devastation pales in comparison, however, to the suffering that is bring experienced by Noah's mother, Fiona, and her broader family. We can say that our hearts go out to them, but surely that can hardly capture the enormity of the sorrow that we all feel on their behalf.

Noah and his mother were constituents in South Belfast. As I say, the entire community across Belfast and across Northern Ireland is thinking about them now.

William Humphrey said, correctly, that Noah will not be forgotten, and we can be sure of that. For those of us who looked at the beautiful words that were shared by the headmaster of his former school, St Malachy's, that pay testament to his leadership, his love of basketball, his commitment to music and his kindness, it is only more painful and sad to think of the life that we have lost. The motto of St Malachy's is "Gloria ab Intus", which, translated, means, "Glory from within". We can hope that some of the glory that clearly was contained within Noah during his short life remains and consoles Fiona Donohoe and her family in the years ahead.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I pass on the sympathy, regret and prayers of the Ulster Unionist Party, and on my behalf as a father. There is no doubt, however, that through this tragedy you do not need to be a parent to feel the pain of that family and to feel the pain of the community, which is for the loss of a young life all too soon.

I commend the Members who have spoken so far. What you get is a real sense of loss and of the tragedy that it is. There will be no more important issue that we talk about here today, regardless of the topic.

As Mr O'Toole rightly pointed out, Noah has been painted by his teachers, his friends, his peers and his family as a uniquely talented young man. Mr O'Dowd pointed out his infectious smile. He was a beautiful young man, and I think that every one of us, having looked at the photographs of him, listened to this story and followed the proceedings, will have been brought to tears, or near to tears, at times. When you put yourself in the shoes of Fiona his mother and his wider and extended family, I cannot think of a worse fear as a parent that you could be faced with than the loss of your child.

Our thoughts are with his school and with his family predominantly, but, as was rightly pointed out by Mr Humphrey, a community mobilised to search and to try to attain a miracle, where Noah would be found alive and well and returned to his family. As was rightly pointed out, the emergency services and the voluntary services provided much of the search resource and expertise. I can only say that if you have not been part of something like that, looking for someone who is lost is something that you do with fear and a knot in your stomach. The bigger part of you wants to find the person alive, but there is another part of you that does not want to find something tragic. You do it out of a sense of it being necessary to do in order to bring release and closure to the family or to achieve that miracle that we all prayed for. It is with regret that that miracle did not happen in the way that we know that miracles can. Noah himself was a miracle, however. Noah was a treasure to his family. He is the pride of his family, and that will never be lost. Look at the lives that he touched, through his multiple skills, which Mr O'Toole pointed out: his sporting prowess, his musical ability and his smile. He touched lives both in life and in death.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we will remember Noah Donohoe with absolute pride, and we thank his mother and his family for how they have allowed us to be part of his story.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you to Mr O'Dowd for proposing the Matter of the Day and giving us the space to express our sympathies. On behalf of the Alliance Party and the people of South Belfast, whom I represent, I express my sincerest sympathies to Noah's family and friends. We all hoped and prayed that this precious boy would come home to his loving mother, Fiona, and to his wider family circle. I hope that she finds the strength to get through these very dark days with their love and knowing that everyone across the country is thinking about them. It is very clear that he was a very special boy who was very energetic and full of life, and it just made it all the sadder when we heard the news on Saturday morning. Like others, I pay tribute to the sterling work of the PSNI, other rescue service providers and the wider community. May Noah rest in peace. Thank you.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The loss of a child at any time is heartbreaking. There are Members of the House who have been in that position through the loss of children or grandchildren, and many of us have not, but I do not think that there is a single member of this society who could not and should not have been touched by the circumstances that befell young Noah and led to his death. That, of course, has piled on the agony for the family, and I have no doubt that they are in the thoughts and prayers, as they ought to be, of all of us.

I join and endorse the comments that have been made in expressing, for what it is worth, bearing in mind the deep, dark place where she must be, the sympathy of us all to Noah's mother, his wider family, his school community, who will feel this loss very severely, and to all his friends.

I join in saluting the tremendous efforts of the emergency services and the huge outpouring through community effort. I commend all and join with all in regretting that the outcome was sadly as it was. I trust that that family will find the grace and the comfort that they so desperately need.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I offer my condolences and sympathy to the family, friends and those who knew Noah Donohoe. What happened to the young man was truly tragic and heartbreaking. I extend my condolences on behalf of People Before Profit to everybody who knew him and were related to him.

It is hard to imagine the heartache that the community is feeling after this tragic news. That is over last week, today and over the next few weeks, and we offer our sympathy and thoughts to them. Sadly, it seems to be too often that the Community Rescue Service has to carry out actions like this, particularly in north Belfast and that part of our city, but we want to thank them, as others have, for their work and efforts.

This young man had clearly touched the hearts of many people, and that was evidenced by the many heartfelt tributes that were paid to him online. It was also evidenced by the many people who came out to search for young Noah, with hundreds of people from all backgrounds and communities, right across Belfast and the North more generally. That spirit and community solidarity will be important for people to attempt to try to come to terms with this tragic event and grieve. We offer our sympathies. Thank you.

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

I, too, echo the words that have been shared in the House by colleagues. Quite simply, there are no words that could ever comfort Fiona, her sisters Shona and Niamh, Noah's uncles Gearoid and Ronan, his granny, Margot, and his grandfather, Gerry, during this very difficult time. I cannot even begin to imagine the pain, worry, stress and anxiety that they suffered in the days prior to finding Noah. There are no words for such a tremendous and tragic loss of young life.

Noah's family are originally from Strabane. Many members of his wider family remain there. As a town and community, many gathered there over the weekend to pay tribute to the family, to offer our prayers, condolences or thoughts and to share in the family's grief at what is a very, very difficult time. Over the last few days, we have all got to know Noah a little bit better from the posts shared on social media; the videos of him cooking, playing musical instruments and sport and that infectious smile. His caring nature shines through in abundance in all those social media posts. There has been an incredible outpouring of grief to support Fiona and her family at this incredibly difficult time. The search for Noah united communities. I know that the prayers of our entire society, from one end of this island to the other, will be with Fiona in the days ahead.

Many young people across the island have lost their life in recent months. I pay tribute to the loss of young life in my colleague Dolores Kelly's constituency and in my constituency, where Dean McElwee tragically lost his life at the weekend. As Jim Allister rightly said, the pain of losing a young person is unimaginable and unbearable for many. My thoughts and prayers, and those of my SDLP colleagues, are with Fiona, her family and all those who are going through this tremendously difficult time.

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

On behalf of the Green Party, I want to take this opportunity to pass our sincere condolences to Fiona, Noah's mum, his family and his circle of friends. It was incredibly tragic to wake up on Saturday to the tragic news that it was Noah's body that had been found. Not many people could even begin to imagine how this has affected his mum. As we just heard from the last Member who spoke, so much of Noah's life has been shared on social media. The clearest thing for me was how close he was to his mum and what a strong and warm relationship they had.

I know that they have not long moved to the Ormeau Road. If there is anything that I can say today to try to offer just a tiny piece of comfort, it is to let Fiona and the family know that the Ormeau Road community cares about what has happened and wants to do all that it can to try to share in their grief and support them through the unimaginable times ahead in dealing with the tragedy of losing such a beautiful boy in such horrific circumstances.

I thank Mr O'Dowd for bringing this to the Chamber today and wish Fiona and her family every strength and courage to get through what will be horrific sadness in the time ahead.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

That concludes Members' contributions on this sad matter.

Assembly Business

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes that Members' salaries and pensions are determined by an independent body and that there should be no change to that arrangement; agrees that alternative provision should be made for Members' allowances; and, in accordance with section 47 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, resolves that the Assembly Commission may determine the allowances payable to Members of the Assembly, the date from which such allowances are payable, which may be a date before or after the making of the determination or this resolution, and that the Commission shall publish any such determination.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is in no way a challenge to your authority in accepting the amendment. However, Assembly Commission members received further advice last night telling us that the amendment's intent cannot be implemented legally. I ask for your view on the matter.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Members should be clear: just because an amendment has been selected for debate does not necessarily mean that there is, currently, legal basis for its implementation. I am advised that the amendment purports to confer power on the Commission to issue guidance under section 47 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 but that that is not a power that the Assembly has under section 47. Nevertheless, I am satisfied, having taken everything into consideration, that it is in order for me to use my discretion to select the amendment for debate and that these matters can be discussed. Therefore the amendment stands. Its intent can be explored further by all Members who wish to contribute to the debate.

The Business Committee has agreed to allocate one and a half hours for the debate, with 10 minutes to move the motion, 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech, and five minutes for all other Members who wish to speak. One amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. All parties represented on the Commission have engaged on this matter for a considerable time in order to reach a consensus, and the motion reflects that consensus, as agreed by all five parties. The motion will enable the Assembly Commission to ensure that Members can legitimately purchase basic items to help them to deliver service to our constituents, that an MLA's contact details can be promoted on the constituency office, and, most notably, to ensure that the terms and conditions of employment of the staff who work in our offices are fair and reasonable.

From discussions with a wide range of Members across the House, I know that there is considerable support for that point. We are talking about the things that every Member needs to deliver a constituency service that meets the needs of our constituents: rent and rates for offices, the electricity, gas and phone bills, and staff salaries. For expenditure on constituency offices, a Member cannot claim a single penny of what are termed "allowances" in the 1998 Act unless a Member has already incurred that expenditure. In fact, the rents and rates bills, and the salaries for support staff, are paid directly to parties, be that to a landlord for rent, employees, or Land and Property Services. The Assembly is absolutely not being asked — I repeat not — to confer a function on the Commission to determine the salaries or pensions payable to Members or former Members. That function should, of course, fall to an entirely independent body.

The Commission intends to bring forward a Bill, subject to the will of the Assembly, that will change the remit and scope of the independent financial review panel (IFRP) to focus solely on Members' salaries and pensions, with a possible change to the name of the body to reflect its revised responsibilities. Members will know that the scrutiny of claims is rigorous and comprehensive; that will not change. I know that every Member, and every party, agrees that all our expenditure must be made according to the rules that have been put in place.

It is reasonable for people inside and outside the House to ask why the motion has been moved at this time. Members will be aware that the Assembly established the independent financial review panel in 2011. While the panel made significant improvements to the overall system, it is felt that the rules set out in the determination of March 2016 failed to grasp the realities that Members face as we try to deliver services to our constituents. The determination certainly did not provide our employees with fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment for the difficult work that they undertake.

In 2015, even before the most recent determination was issued by the panel, the Commission began to review a range of options for the reform of the system of providing financial support for Members. It is the Commission's position, achieved through consensus from all five parties, that the support that can be made available to Members, especially to upgrade our constituency service, can best be delivered from within the Building.

Issues were raised by Members from all sides of the House. However, the changes to the terms and conditions of employment for support staff that Members were required to adopt is probably the issue that has caused the most concern for Members as responsible employers.

The last determination dramatically reduced sick and maternity pay for employees, even for those who were off work at that time due to illness or maternity, which is a highly unusual practice. Annual leave was also reduced for those employees to the minimum statutory level.

The terms have to be adopted by Members if staff salaries are to be recovered and are considerably less than the terms offered by most public and private-sector employers.

Other issues included the prohibition on letting constituents know our telephone number and email address from our office signage. While that might be a small thing, I have yet to hear any rational explanation for why that is the case or why it is desirable to have the prohibition in place.

The formula for assessing the level of rates for an office that can be paid in any year is another issue. Members may wish to know that almost one sixth of Members in this House had to pay, personally, part of the rates bill for their office in the 2019-2020 financial year. Members will also be aware of the bar on operating a surgery somewhere else in the constituency, maybe by renting a room or a hall once a week or once a month. Again, the purpose of that prohibition is unclear.

The current determinations provision, if untouched, will prevent Members recovering the cost of any expenditure incurred with a supplier who is resident in the United Kingdom once the implementation period for the UK's exit from the EU ends. When we look at the other legislatures across the British Isles, we see a variety of systems in place to assess the types and levels of expenditure that elected Members can recover. In Dublin, TDs' allowances are determined by a statutory instrument made by the Minister for Finance. At Westminster, MPs' allowances are set by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. In Wales, they are set by the independent Remuneration Board, and, in Scotland, allowances for MSPs are set by the equivalent of the Assembly Commission. There is no single mechanism for determining the allowances paid to elected Members.

Should the Assembly resolve today to confer on the Commission the function of determining the allowances payable to Members, the Commission would bring forward and publish a new determination to deal with the aforementioned problems. Any such determination would continue to apply best practice and ensure value for money for the public purse. Let us be clear: this is the only mechanism presently available to create a new determination. If the motion is not carried, the current determination will remain in place until a successor panel is appointed and a new determination is made.

I want to briefly address the amendment tabled by Mr Allister. Members may wish to note that the only functions that can be conferred on the Commission by the Assembly under section 47 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are to determine the salaries and/or allowances that are payable to Members. The Assembly cannot confer a function under section 47 of the 1998 Act for the Commission to direct the panel; indeed, section 3 of the 2011 Act that facilitated the formation of the panel codifies the independence of the panel. In short, the Commission has no power to direct the panel.

When considering the matter, the Commission identified a possible scenario in which the 2011 Act could be amended to require the panel to align the terms and conditions for Members' support staff to a reasonable comparator. While that might resolve the issues relating to terms and conditions of employment for a member of staff, it will not resolve any of the other issues that Members and parties have raised about the 2016 determination.

Today's motion is much clearer and, in the Commission's view, offers the most effective approach to determining the allowances that should be payable to Members, allied with the robust and effective scrutiny of all claims that is already in place and the Commission's ability to adapt more quickly to external circumstances and the changing needs of Members than an external body. The Commission is firmly of the view that the motion sets out the best way forward.

The motion is about setting reasonable and fair levels of financial support for offices and conditions of employment for constituency staff in a way that fully understands the challenges that Members face each and every day. All parties represented on the Commission have engaged in the matter for a considerable time to reach a consensus position. The motion reflects that consensus position. On the basis of the views of all parties represented on the Commission, I commend the motion to the House.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I beg to move the following amendment:

Leave out all after "salaries" and insert: ", allowances and pensions are determined by an independent body and that there should be no change to that arrangement, save that, in accordance with section 47 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Assembly Commission can issue guidance to the independent body on the subject of allowances, with the exception of the quantum thereof, but only in circumstances where the implementation of the arrangements set by the independent body are causing practical difficulties or inequities, and the Commission shall publish all such guidance."

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member has 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Those who tabled the motion must have short memories. I do not think that the public have. The public well remember that, when the system that is proposed in the motion was in operation, namely that MLAs controlled, through the Commission, their own expenses, it was abused and the product was scandal. In the face of a tide of public outrage, the Assembly passed the Act in 2011 and, in doing that, recognised that it was untenable for Members to be in control of their salaries, pensions or allowances. Today, we are asked to retreat from that and recreate the circumstances that gave rise to such scandalous behaviour as Sinn Féin Members pouring £700,000 of their expenses — unknown, it was claimed, by some of their MLAs — into a body called Research Services Ireland Limited, headed by Sinn Féin's finance director. When the BBC's 'Spotlight' did a programme, they could find no website for Research Services Ireland. They could find no phone number. They could find not even one sheet of paper of research ever produced. It was a scam. It was a rip-off of public money.

Michelle O'Neill, the current deputy First Minister, paid £18,000 of rent to a so-called cultural society for an office in Gulladuff: the South Derry Cultural and Heritage Society. One of the six trustees of the hall for which the money was paid let the cat out of the bag. A Mr Michael McGonagle claimed that Sinn Féin had raised the money to buy the building 30 years ago, and here was a Sinn Féin MLA, now the deputy First Minister, paying £18,000 per year — a colossal rent — to that supposed cultural society. Mr McGonagle went on to say that he had never heard of the South Derry Cultural and Heritage Society and that, as a trustee, he had never received any rent for the use of the building. Those are facts as established.

We had the Church Street office in Ballymena and the scandal of £50,000 in one year claimed by a father and son — Members of this Assembly — to go into an office of which the first director was Seymour Sweeney of "I know of him" fame. He was replaced as sole director by Ian Paisley Jr's father-in-law, who was then replaced by a DUP councillor who, when asked by 'The Belfast Telegraph' about the matter, said:

"I haven’t a clue. I know flip all about it ... I know nothing about it, I’m only the landlord."

He later told BBC 'Spotlight', however, that the sole beneficiary of the rent was the bank. What does that mean? That means that rent for expenses was being used to pay off a mortgage to create a party asset.

There was the Sinn Féin MLA who could not drive and who, apparently, was making a claim for £5,000 in mileage allowance. He said that he had never signed the form; someone else had done it for him. We had £9,000 claimed for oil in a former Speaker's constituency office that was not used there. We had an MLA who claimed £7,000 for electrical equipment to create a paper-free office — iPads, laptops and computers — and then went on to claim £8,200 in stamps for his paperless office. What a farce. Such are the circumstances to which we are invited to return.

I know that the panel has been guilty of some of the most irrational decisions, such as not being able to put your phone number on your office signage — I tried to take them to the ombudsman over that — or not being allowed more than one office; I suffered from that. I know that they made some ridiculous decisions and were most bumptious in trying to defend them. However, the principle here is whether we, as MLAs, should set our own salary. No. Should we set our own allowances? No. So why do we want to do it, particularly in circumstances where the body to which we want to give the powers did nothing about the £700,000 to Research Services Ireland, the Ballymena Church Street office or the fictitious claims to cultural societies? It swept it all under the carpet. Those are the circumstances that we want to recreate.

I respectfully suggest to the House that we are headed very much in the wrong direction. That is why I say that we need to leave the quantum — the amount — of the expenses with the independent panel but we need to take enhanced powers to give guidance to that panel when it makes irrational, unjustifiable or absurd decisions.

I heard the proposer of the motion say that there is no legal power. Has he never read section 2(4) of the 2011 Act? It says:

"The Panel may consider any other matter which is relevant to the discharge of its functions, either on its own initiative or at the written request of the Commission."

The Commission already has the power to write to the panel to say, "You made a decision about not MLAs not being able to put their phone number on their office signage. Would you please reconsider that for the following reasons?". It can make a written request to say, "You have made a decision that is prejudicial to the maternity or paternity leave rights or sickness rights of our staff. Would you please look afresh at it?". The power is there. Why is it not being exercised? Indeed, why has the panel never been reappointed? Why is it that a panel that ran out of office in 2016 has never been replaced? Did some people want the situation to fester so that they could reach this point of saying, "We have to do something about it"?

The Member who proposed the motion left me unclear about what he intends. He said, at one point, that the Assembly Commission would bring forward a Bill to change the range and scope of the panel, and then, towards the end, he said that the Commission would bring forward a new determination. Which is it? Are you just going to wipe out the panel or override it by a determination on foot of a mere resolution of the House? There is legislation. Are you going to change the legislation to do the very things that, you said, you would not do a few years ago? We need some clarity. Are you thinking that, by mere determination, you can override the decisions made under the 2011 Act, or are you going to change the 2011 Act?

If you want to do something, you have to change the 2011 Act —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— and, when you change it, you can do exactly what is proposed in the amendment and thereby maintain the sanctity of separation between Members and allowances that gives the authority —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member's time is up.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— to make sure they stay on the rails at every turn.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member's time is up.

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

I thank the House for the opportunity to contribute briefly to what is an important debate. As we have heard already, the public are, rightly, annoyed about the prospect of any increases to expenditure. However, clarification needs to be put into the public domain as to what the motion is about. It is not about Members' pay, and we cannot blame the public for being angry, especially after we had been locked out of the institutions — certainly against our will — for the last number of years. There is no change to Members' pay and nor should there be. Members' pay will still be independently determined and that should always be the case. The SDLP would not support the motion if that was the case. The motion is about how we treat members of staff, deal with complex problems and offer a service to the public every day.

There is a real lack of common sense in the current determination and Mr Allister was right to touch on that in his contribution, even around signage, phone numbers or a very small crest on a door — very simple things that were fineable under the current determination. Even a broken-down printer could not be repaired locally; you had to send for someone to come from Belfast at a cost to the public purse that made no sense whatsoever. When you tried to have those discussions, you were shot down and told, "It is in the determination". That made things very frustrating for a lot of Assembly Members to continue in their duties.

Many of us in the Chamber proudly support the advancement of workers' rights. Each and every day, I hear Members of the House speak about the importance of protecting those rights. In order for the public to have confidence in us, we need to ensure that we practise what we preach. We are in a situation where our staff are being failed because their rights are not being protected under the current determination. Whilst I understand and appreciate the reasons for the determination, given the previous abuses of some in relation to MLAs' expenses, it is vital that we, as employers and as MLAs, protect the rights of our staff.

I am not proud that we give our staff the minimum legal amount of sick and maternity pay. I am not proud that annual leave is at the minimum statutory level. I am not proud that, under the current rules of the determination, there are staff in MLA offices who could be earning less than the living wage and are struggling. I know full well that we are living in very tough times and that every penny of public spend needs to be accounted for, but I stand here today for my staff and the hard-working staff of many other Assembly Members in offices who deserve fair pay and fair terms and conditions. My office could not run without my staff working more hours than they are paid for, alongside the many volunteers who, daily, help me in my duties as a public representative. They are making an invaluable difference to the communities that I am elected to serve, and all that I want for them is fairness.

We are not seeking a dilution of scrutiny or accountability; the opposite is true. The proposed measures will demand enhanced scrutiny of every penny that is spent in this place. My party is committed to robust transparency measures to ensure that there is no return to the abuse of public money, as was clearly outlined very articulately by Mr Allister, in relation to Research Services Ireland. I have mentioned that in the House on many occasions in previous contributions. The SDLP will be making that position clear and at the Assembly Commission as well.

Now, more than ever, constituency offices are needed to help the many vulnerable people who contact us each and every week and the many businesses that are struggling to make ends meet and to support those who are seeking to improve our communities. The motion is about MLAs deciding what we want to be responsible for, which is the well-being of our staff, and for running an effective and efficient office that delivers for people. That is vital in supporting our communities at this time. It is not an easy debate, but there are issues with the determination that need to be addressed. Our staff deserve fairness. We cannot go out into the public domain and stand up for the rights of workers if we are not going to practise what we preach ourselves. That is our reason for supporting the change and the motion.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I sense a nervousness about the motion in the House and in wider society. We ought always to be mindful that, as an Assembly, we must have the confidence of our society. If we do not have that confidence, we will always fail.

The Independent Financial Review Panel (IFRP) determination felt flawed; it felt irrational. It felt like all MLAs were being punished because of the abuses of some. It felt like a collective punishment meted out to every single one of us.

Mr Allister raised a compelling argument about abuses of the system as it stood. That resonates within the society that we represent, and we must be mindful of that.

We have looked at the ludicrous position whereby we cannot put our telephone number on our signage. So, for the last three months, when your offices have been closed and the shutters were down, nobody has seen the phone number that would enable them to call you. That is the irrational piece in all of this.

The issue has been debated at length by the Assembly Commission, and it is right to bring it before the Assembly for debate: for people to make their arguments, for people to make decisions on the basis of those arguments and to try to explore whether, through the motion or the amendment, there are other ways of achieving the same thing.

Personally, I do not need any extra expenses. My office does not need any extra expenses. I cut my cloth to meet what I have, as every other business does. I have been working quite happily since I became an MLA in 2016. However, I have a real concern about the pay and conditions of my staff. They do not have the right pay and conditions. Their pay is scandalous. They deal with civil servants who get paid nearly twice as much as they do.

The Ulster Unionist Party's Chief Whip, who sits on the Commission, wanted to adopt a NIPSA model. That was not deemed cost-effective, but at least people were exploring other ways of doing this. I know that other parties did similarly — in fact, I think that other parties did similarly before coming up with the motion. So, it is right that the motion is before us and that we debate it and put our points across. However, let us not just throw out Mr Allister's amendment because it does not match what we have gone through and talked about. Let us use it to test our ability to talk and think, and maybe to push back and postpone what we are trying to do here, in order to have the confidence, transparency and accountability that we have been lacking for quite some time.

I said it before: Mr Allister puts forward a compelling argument. Nothing stops us creating a new panel, and nothing stops us having a new determination. I am not saying that we should set aside the IFRP determination, but it certainly needs to be amendable. As an MLA, my nervousness about the motion and the nervousness of my party is that, in the months and years to come, it will be abused, we will forget the lessons that we learned in the past, and we will lose that confidence. We will lose that confidence individually and, as a House, collectively.

I go back to where I started: it is right to debate this in the Chamber and to get your points of view across, no matter how popular or unpopular they are. We need to do that, and, if we have to change direction, we have to change direction. I believe that Mr Allister's amendment enables us to change direction. I think that it enables us to look at this in the long term and to create a new panel that can make a new determination. Therefore, my party and I will support the amendment.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Interesting issues were raised by the other Members who have spoken. I attended a Commission meeting at which this matter was debated. Alliance has maintained throughout that it would prefer that an independent body look at all aspects of payments to MLAs: salaries, pensions and allowances, even though the allowances do not go into our pockets, which some people do not seem to understand, but are to pay our staff and our rent. However, we were voted down that day, and, that day, the collegiate approach was the motion that is before us.

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

Will the Member take an intervention?

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I will.

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

Can the Member recall that no such vote was taken? This is a narrative that is absolutely shameful on the Alliance Party. No such vote was taken. Can you confirm that?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Thank you very much. On the day that I was there, there was a call around the room and each of the parties was to say yes or no to whether they would support having an independent body like the body in Westminster. The Alliance Party was the only one to support that, and everyone else decided that changes needed to be made.

We have in front of us a motion that the Alliance Party, on a collegiate approach, could support, but we will take any available opportunity to support an independent body to look over all of the money that goes to MLAs.

Today is the International Day of Parliamentarism. The United Nations General Assembly resolution states that the International Day of Parliamentarism should celebrate giving confidence to the public, and its resolution states the need for transparency. We would not give our staff the power to dictate their own salaries, but we would be giving ourselves that power. We are saying that we are going to set out salaries for our staff. We are the employers, but we are using public money. They need to be reviewed. The treatment of staff in MLAs' offices by the existing determination is deplorable and would not be put up with in any other place. An independent body such as there is in Westminster would be appropriate.

We were not successful in the Commission, and that is why we say today that we could have gone with the motion, but there is an opportunity with the amendment. The amendment gives us the opportunity to look at an independent body and to bring into scope someone else who will help scrutinise and set standards for payments to MLAs.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I appreciate the Member giving way. The Member has articulated the view that she wants an independent panel to deal with these issues because of the failures of the previous independent panel. She acknowledges all of those failures. If the previous panel did not treat our staff fairly, what confidence can MLAs have that a new panel would treat their staff fairly?

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

The Member has helped me to confirm why it is so important. The previous panel was not independent. It was brought forward through a recruitment process that determined people who could not be on the panel, but did not determine people who should have been on the panel. Where was the expertise in accountancy, HR or HMRC issues? It was not there. We have the opportunity now to have an independent body like the one at Westminster — a body that will include all of the professional qualifications that we need to ensure fairness for our staff and the public.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

If you let me carry on, I will bring you in in a moment. The recruitment of the panel would be key. We can no longer allow our staff to be treated like second-class citizens because people wanted to get at the MLAs. We need people with expertise in business management and HMRC issues. In the period in which the IFRP has not been in place, the Commission has handed over the management of the determination to staff in this place. That has been unfair, because that determination has been unpleasant to deal with, and staff have had to deal with MLAs in that. We should, therefore, be looking at the amendment; we should be considering alternatives. We should be looking at transparency, and we should be above and beyond.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I appreciate the Member giving way again. She has indicated that another independent panel should have the professional expertise to look at this issue. Is she saying that the former chairman of the Belfast Health Trust and the assistant Chief Constable did not have the requisite qualifications to consider all of those areas around HR and financial accountability, given what was on their CV?

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I was not here when that panel was chosen. I can go only by what happened when that panel brought forward its determination: when HMRC had to come to this place and say that the way in which the panel was paying expenses to MLAS was wrong; when there was a recoupment of costs from all MLAs, as otherwise this place would have faced a fantastic tax bill. Something, therefore, was going wrong. When the Alliance Party has an opportunity to go for an independent body, we will take it.

We respect the collegiate approach of the Commission, but I am sure that everybody can respect the fact that, as a party, we have been pushing for this. We put it in our written submission and said it at the Commission meetings. We were not given the opportunity to take that forward. We would be happy enough to vote for the motion as it stands, but, when there is the opportunity for an amendment for an independent body, we will take that.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I contribute to the debate as one who has been around the Building for a very long time. I served on the Assembly Commission for 14 years. I have been an Assembly Member's pension scheme trustee for 16 years. I have served on the Audit Committee, and I have been a Member of the House for 26 years. There are people in the Chamber who were not even born when I was first elected to the Assembly. Therefore, I speak with some experience.

In our wisdom, we appointed an independent review panel, and there were two individuals on that panel who had absolutely no time for public representatives, and it showed in their determination. Where they lost my respect in totality was when they had clearly botched the report and made major errors, they did not admit it but tried to defend the indefensible. We had a situation where a very experienced and respected Member of the Assembly was fined almost £10,000 out of his pension because he had the temerity to put his phone number on his sign.

How dare we put our phone number on our signs so that our constituents, particularly during lockdown, can come and find out how to contact us? Would there be a major democratic deficit, would a tragedy occur, if our constituents could find out our phone numbers? What did the two spokes-gentlemen do, when they were asked about this mistake? They defended it when they knew it was wrong. Then they told us we could not have our email address on our office signs because, obviously, that would bring democracy crashing around our ankles. Their argument was that an email address could read something like, "jim_wells_themostwonderfulmlasincetimebegan.com". They said that it could be abused. Why could they not accept that, if we all had our Assembly ".gov.uk" email addresses on our signs, it would have avoided that? However, again, they defended the indefensible.

We had a situation in North Down where a young lady, who went off on maternity leave, was forced to return, as a result of the determination, because of the change in the regulations, which are much less favourable to fathers and mothers. It goes on and on. Indeed, there is a case at the moment where an MLA is facing a £20,000 fine for something so minor that most employers would have shrugged their shoulders and forgotten about it.

We have so many issues where they have got it wrong. Unlike the honourable Member for North Antrim, I have no confidence whatsoever that another panel can deal with this situation. We are not, and I repeat not — I hope that the public and the BBC get this, because the reporting of it has been far from accurate, in my opinion — asking for a pay rise, and we should not. We are not asking for a change in our pensions. We are asking for fundamental fair treatment of our staff, none of whom have had a pay rise for five years. They have had their pensions slashed and basic rights undermined, and there is nothing we can do about it. That is the difficulty.

I have to say that Mr Allister was very eloquent. He raised some points about the appalling abuses of the past, and I agree with him. However, he should remember that there is a fundamental difference between now and 2011. Every penny that we spend, in our office cost allowance, will be published and scrutinised by the press. A few years ago, a local newspaper contacted me and asked, "Mr Wells, how can you justify spending £1.50 a week on a local newspaper?" I said, "That is your newspaper." He said, "That is a very good use of taxpayers' money." The point is that that is how minute the available detail is at the moment.

We have learnt our lessons. There is no problem, for instance, with the Commission setting a limit on the amount of rent that can be paid. However, we have the obscenity, at the moment, whereby MLAs have to forcibly go to their landlords and plead with them to increase their rents, so that they can recoup the rates that are payable, because they are tied to the level of rents. We have the obscenity where Members cannot share offices because of the punitive controls that are placed upon them for doing so. They have got it completely wrong.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for giving way. He makes a valid point about the sharing of offices. In my constituency, my colleague and I share an office with the Member of Parliament. It would be to the detriment of the taxpayer if my colleague in the House and I were to open up our own office and access greater amounts of taxpayers' money. We are saving the taxpayer money by sharing an office, but are, then, penalised for it by the determination.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the extra minute. Clearly, the panel, when they made that determination, got it wrong, but have they ever had the honesty to go on 'Talkback' or 'The Nolan Show' etc and actually admit that they got it wrong? That is why I have lost all respect for that determination.

What we are doing here is not feathering our own nests, but looking after the people who have had to deal with the abuse and the irate constituents who have come in to complain. Many of those staff have drifted off, saying, "If that is how we are going to be treated by the legislators of Northern Ireland, we are no longer interested in working for them". Those are the people who count. I believe that we, as MLAs, must stand by them even if that is unpopular with the public.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

I support everything that my colleague Mr Jim Wells said. He has clearly articulated some of the many issues with which all Members in the Chamber will agree. Today, we stand with our staff, who have put in a huge number of hours and a huge amount of effort for very little thanks. We need to look at those determinations.

I must say that I am bewildered but, I suppose, not overly surprised by the reactions of some Members in the House. Mr Butler has signed the motion, as has Mr Blair, yet they, obviously, do not speak to their party colleagues. Clearly, there is a communication issue.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

Yes. Go ahead.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I just want to make it clear that, when I gave my speech on behalf of the Alliance Party, I said that we had worked with a collegiate approach in the Commission but that, when there was an opportunity for an amendment after the Commission had put forward its motion, we chose to back the amendment. Therefore, there is no issue with Mr Blair's having signed the motion.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

He has the full support of the Alliance Party.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

I thank the Member for that intervention. However, the Alliance Party's position is far from clear, because it has one position behind closed doors and another one publicly. Unfortunately, that has been the case with more than just this issue, but that is a matter for the Alliance Party. The public will judge that for themselves, as, indeed, will the staff of our Assembly offices.

The people of Northern Ireland have the right to a clear and reasonable explanation of exactly what has been proposed. My party remains firmly of the view that MLAs should have no role in setting their salary or, indeed, their pension. They must continue to be set independently. Nobody is questioning for one second the fact that that is done independently. However, we also acknowledge that striving for the highest standards in public office means enabling the highest quality of representation. That is why I entered politics; to get results for my constituents and to make a lasting difference. It is, however, a matter of regret that the use of an independent body to decide office and staff allowances has hindered rather than helped that cause; not our cause per se, but that of the people whom we collectively represent. Local communities deserve constituency services that are flexible and responsive to their needs. They are also entitled to have appropriately skilled staff working on their behalf. Sadly, the current circumstances and system do not allow for that.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that there are two fundamental principles that people never seem to bear in mind, or of which they seldom take account? One is that two full-time equivalents, or 74 working hours per week, puts Members in a situation where they have zero flexibility with staffing and that, in times of staff sickness or leave, that often results in lone working, when members of staff, who are often female, are left in a vulnerable position? Secondly, does the Member agree that it is deeply unfair that a very experienced member of staff who happens to move to work for another Member must automatically go the bottom of their pay scale?

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

I agree completely with the Member. Those are disgraceful situations that would not be tolerated anywhere else. Again, although the House is absolutely unanimous on those issues, when it comes to it, it is unwilling to deal with them. That is deeply regrettable, given the fact that all parties have supported the motion. It is an unacceptable position and one that we must rectify.

The reality is that different constituencies across the country have different needs. The singular approach that was decided independently cannot appreciate or address those issues. That is why we support the changes put forward in the motion. We do not believe that the measures set out in the selected amendment would have the necessary impact or influence in addressing core concerns around the level of service afforded to the public. Indeed, we all had the opportunity to write to the Commission. We all had the opportunity to raise the concerns, but that alone clearly had no impact on the independent panel.

The independent panel met with MLAs. It knew the issues, but as Mr Wells clearly articulated, it did not take those views into consideration. Obviously, setting up a new independent panel, hoping that we will get the right result for our staff, is not the way forward because, as some Members have said, that did not work out well in the past.

I want to emphasise the fact that MLAs will not receive —.

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

Yes, go ahead.

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

It is also important that we discuss staff safety. Throughout the last mandate, there was a series of incidents in MLAs' offices where staff did not felt safe. In my office in Omagh, that happened to one of my members of staff who was on her own because we could not provide cover for the person who was off, and she suffered a threat that day. Surely, there needs to be some allowance for staff safety as well.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

I thank the Member for that. I completely agree. Staff safety is something that we have had to deal with in our office on many occasions, and it is frightening. We owe it to our very hardworking staff who have been on the front line throughout the COVID-19 crisis. They deserve the respect. This is not about MLAs; this is about our staff and showing support and appreciation for them. I urge everybody to support the motion and agree to get behind it.

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

I was elected in 2016 after the financial review happened and after the stories of the expenses scandals had broken. The public lost so much faith and trust in us. There is no doubt that there are problems with the independent financial review determination and how we can access and use our office cost expenditure. They are much bigger than putting a phone number on a sign. Ms Bunting was absolutely right when she pointed out the restrictions in flexibility that we can allow our staff: the maximum working hours, the setting of salaries, and, if there are any changes, they go back to the bottom of the pay scale or even have to reapply through open competition for their own job. There are many problems with that, but, again, we have to remember why we are here.

There are even issues around setting a cap on office rental costs. That applies to everyone equally right across Northern Ireland. It is a very different rate and rent setting in Strabane high street, for example, from South Belfast, but that is not taken into consideration either. Our staff are treated differently. Every single staff contract that I have signed since being elected, I have handed it back to the staff with a recommendation that if they are not already in a trade union, they should join one and that they should challenge me on it. To date, they have all been so nice that they have not done that, but I still recommend that they do.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

Certainly.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

Does the Member agree that we are also in a situation where not only are the terms and conditions infinitely better in the Northern Ireland Civil Service but they are infinitely better for Assembly staff? Party staff and our local MLA staff have the worst terms and conditions of everybody who works in this sector.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

Thank you. Those issues have been very well made in this Chamber, but what I am hearing is an awful lot about having no trust and no faith in an independent financial review panel because the only one that we have had to date got it so wrong.

Sometimes, the House gets it wrong. Sometimes people in the House get it wrong, yet we always have another chance to get it right. That should never stop us from ever trying to keep getting it right. We have had no independent financial review panel since June 2016. It has not existed. So, what is going on in that process? Why have we been left all those years with no one there?

We really, really need to keep public confidence and public trust in us, because we have not done an awful lot to get over the absolute scandal of 2015 and 2016. We need our independence, and we need to keep building trust, and I believe that we can do both. The Green Party will support the amendment to the motion.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

It is worth remembering the consternation that the MPs' expenses scandal and the local version caused across communities here a few years ago. People were outraged in the middle of economic austerity, when they were told that they had to tighten their belts, that MLAs — some of them, at least — were involved in unsavoury financial practice, to put it nicely. Never again should we tolerate a system in which people can funnel extremely large sums of public money into research companies that did not do any research, if they even existed in any real sense at all, or questionable heating bills, claiming multiple times for offices and much, much more, as we have heard. I hazard a guess that, if somebody on benefits were accused of that kind of activity, they would probably be in jail now or facing a small claims court case. The same did not happen to MLAs or party reps.

The motion says that "alternative provision should be made" but does not state clearly what that is or should be, and we are left to believe that it will simply be the Assembly Commission itself deciding. Again, are we to have blind faith that a fair and transparent system will be set up if we just take the word of the bigger parties on the issue? Where is the accountability with the proposed alternative system? 'New Decade, New Approach' states:

"The parties have therefore agreed to an ambitious package of measures to strengthen transparency and governance arrangements in the Assembly and Executive in line with international best practice."

Not here, not with this proposal. I am not sure whether the proposal that we are discussing was agreed as part of New Decade, New Approach, but we can safely say that it certainly does not represent a transparent or best-practice arrangement. Many people will be left scratching their heads at that assertion. It falls well short of best practice to have a situation, it seems, where MLAs can decide constituency expenses for themselves and their fellow MLAs. Many would take the view that that does not appear to be an open system and that it could be exploited in favour of MLAs.

It is worth mentioning that many workers would welcome the opportunity to set their own expenses in relation to office costs and support staff but, of course, cannot. Why should there be a different arrangement for MLAs? The last survey showed that at least 15 MLAs employ family members in different roles relating to constituency work and research activities. Can we honestly say that there will be no conflicts of interest in MLAs setting the allowances and wages of, if not their own, then their party colleagues' relatives? How can we accurately and truly declare this to be an independent, transparent or fair system? Again, I am sure most workers, such as the health workers who had to go on strike recently for fair pay, would love to have family members setting their wages, conditions, allowances and so on.

To emphasise, I believe that all workers deserve a fair wage. I am open to a fair system that treats office staff and other staff who work in the political sphere in a fair and equal way, but the proposed system does not do that. It is worth remembering that we are looking into an economic abyss, with many people unfortunately losing their jobs, and we will have a situation where it is one rule for MLAs setting their own expenses and allowances while people lose their jobs and go onto the dole queue.

We still do not know the clear political rationale for the proposal. Presumably, there have been discussions about the current level of expenses at the Assembly Commission. Can anyone clarify whether that has been the case? If so, have Members indicated their willingness to increase that or to reduce it? Otherwise, what is the point in changing the set-up? The Assembly needs to avoid another situation in which Stormont operates a slush fund for political parties. I do not see how the proposal, coming from the bigger parties, will address the possibility of that happening again. I oppose the motion, and I support the amendment.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I say straight off that I support the motion. I have a fair bit of sympathy with Mr Allister's amendment, but, frankly, the motion goes straight to the heart of the matter, whereas there seems to be some doubt about Mr Allister's amendment, its legality and its enforceability. I will just talk about the motion.

It is a no-brainer that we need an independent review panel to deal with our salaries and pensions. As chair of the pension trustees for many years up until a few months ago, I had some dealings with the panel on the subject of pensions, but, naturally, we ranged more broadly than that in those discussions. Quite frankly, Members, I agree with Mr Wells completely. I might as well have spoken to the nearest oak tree as speak to that panel. They did not want to know about amendments and did not want to know about the glaring inconsistencies in their determination on allowances. There were one or two points, which I will not dwell on, to do with pensions that they could have tidied up. If a new panel is established — I hope that it will be — I hope that it will talk to us again about the pensions side of things. I will have one or two suggestions for it.

I also suggest that, if we are to have an independent panel, it might do no harm if there were a retired MLA with no axe to grind advising it, rather than a sitting MLA. I am not looking at myself, because I have not retired, but who knows? That has been suggested before, and it has merit.

Members have mentioned most of what I wanted to raise on allowances, but, if this goes ahead, the Commission will have a valid template to work from. It is not all bad, but it needs tidied and it needs inconsistencies dealt with in a way that the previous panel refused point-blank to listen to us about. The question of signage is much rehearsed. Apart from not being able to put your phone number or email address on a sign, you are not allowed to have a protruding sign that people can see much more easily when they are driving down the street. Apparently, that is a mortal sin as well. You can put your phone number on your window, apparently, and your email address, but, if you had a bomb at your office, as I did, you probably would not want to leave the shutter up so that people could see the phone number. So it goes on.

There is a question about mileage. Let me say straight away that I do not claim home-to-Stormont mileage because, the past few years, it has been too complicated. If I were a Member from one of the more extended constituencies — East Antrim, perhaps — and I lived somewhere near Cushendun, I would get the same mileage allowance as a Member who lived in Jordanstown. I would find that ironic. One Member would be getting too much, and one would be getting too little. Pointing to something called a "centroid" in the middle of the constituency does not solve the problem, but that is the way that it is at the moment.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Will the honourable Member give way?

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Yes.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Would the honourable Member also say that one of the errors of the determination is that we cannot pay staff travel allowance as they carry out their functions, for instance for attending a planning appeal or a social security tribunal? We are forbidden from claiming for and paying them a small mileage rate for attendance at those events.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Thank you. That is one that I had not thought of, but I take the point.

Twenty-eight days sounds like a reasonable, average type of holiday allowance for constituency staff until you take off the 11 statutory days that have to be counted in that. In fact, they only really get 17 days plus days when the office is closed anyway. That is not reasonable. It is not sensible.

The pay scales are set in stone. If I were to retire, a senior member of staff would have to become redundant straight away. The next MLA would, perhaps, move into the same office with the same staff, once you had gone through a totally independent and transparent selection procedure, of course. That person would have to take a £5,000 drop if they were at the top of the scale to retake their own job. If they did not do it, you would lose all the experience that they have garnered. In my case, I have had the same staff for over 13 years. I could go on.

With regard to rent and rates, we need a rent cap, but we do not need a rates cap alongside it. The differential across the country in that respect is stark. If somebody can find an office at £8,500 a year in some areas of Belfast, in particular, and other big cities, good luck to them, because they will then hit the rates cap. I see Mr Stalford nodding at that fact.

There is plenty to be going on with. I encourage the Commission to take this forward but caution them that we are under scrutiny. Everybody is watching this and watching what they do. The things that need to be done are not necessarily totally dramatic; they are to tidy-up wrongs and make this a better place for us to work —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

— and, particularly, for constituency staff to work with some confidence in the way that they are being treated. I support the motion.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I am disappointed that, in the course of the debate, we have not had any clarity on the key question from the proponents of the motion. Do they want us to move forward on the basis of amending the 2011 Act and legislating to do that, which is above board and in order, or do they want the Commission to supersede the legislation — a remarkable suggestion — override it and create a determination of their own? I hope that, when we come to the winding-up speech, we will have an indication of which course it is setting, because both were pointed to by the proposer of the motion.

I understand the temptation to hide behind making this all about staff. I have as many concerns as any other Member about the foolishness of the determination that was issued by the panel. There is a fundamental question here: do we value and want to have independence in governing the amount of our allowances, or do we want to take that ourselves? When the House last did that, it was grossly abused. There is a middle way, and it is quite simple. Pursuant to the amendment, we should introduce a Bill to amend the 2011 Act, to strengthen the powers of the Commission to give guidance and direction to the panel on practical issues and on inequities that they create.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I will in a moment.

That is the middle way: to commit ourselves to legislation to do that but to leave the setting of the quantum of the allowances exclusively with that panel.

We seem to have got to a position where we had one bad panel, so to speak, so we never appointed another one to see if anything could be done better. We never issued any directions under the 2011 Act. We were happy to let it all fester. Creating a situation where we use the abuses of the panel of the past simply to supersede the panel and take it all back and obliterate the independence is the wrong way to go. I ask those who tabled the motion to take the motion back to the Commission, without pushing it to a vote, to consider the alternatives, to consider amending the 2011 Act, to give the Commission authority to intervene where it is right. Why do you not do that? If you do that, I will not press my amendment. Trying to keep the Assembly in the dark about what you really intend to do and then, maybe next week, issuing a sudden finding that changes all of this is, legally, very questionable, given the 2011 Act. Is that the intent?

I am saying to the Assembly Commission, or those members of it who are pushing this, let us go for the middle way; let us amend the 2011 Act to curb the excesses of the panel, give the Commission the status that it should have and strengthen its ability to give some direction, where it is necessary to do so. If we did that we would capture public confidence rather than squander public confidence, which is what this motion, unamended, undoubtedly will do.

I give way to Mr Wells.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

First of all we did not have a poor panel, we had a dreadful panel. Secondly, as Mr Lunn quite rightly said, attempts were made by Commission members and individual MLAs to try to influence the decision made by the independent panel, but the panel totally ignored them. If we go down the route that the Member is suggesting exactly the same could happen again. The panel could say, "we are independent, we have a right to make a decision and, frankly, we are going to ignore what you say".

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

That, of course, is why I suggested that we need to amend the 2011 Act to give the Commission the status to indicate guidance to the panel. The problem is that we had a panel that did very many foolish things, but the Commission never seems to have challenged them under the terms of clause 24.

Now we are in a situation where the motion is saying to get rid of all the independence — all of it. That is the essence of it. The motion is taking away any independence, scrutiny and surveillance of expenses and giving it all to the MLAs, through the Commission. It is going back to where we were. I am simply cautioning this House that to go back to where we were is a dark place. It is a dark place open to abuse and scandal.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I do not want to see this House, whatever else I think about it, go to that place. That is why I am offering an amendment, which I think steers a middle way and projects a route whereby we can make the changes, but make them while attaining public confidence.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I call on John O'Dowd to make a winding-up speech on the motion. You will have up to 10 minutes.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I thank the Members who contributed to today's debate and I will try to cover the points made and the questions posed by Members. I suspect that the best way to sum up today's debate is that success has many fathers and failure is an orphan.

Let me be clear that success, in this case, is about rectifying the wrong of the past and all the Commission parties have debated this at length over many years, and more intensely since the Assembly resumed, because all the parties around the table wanted to rectify the wrong. There may be different versions of what happened at Commission meetings and different opinions on what happened at them, but no one, and I mean no one, can deny that there is a motion before the House today, signed by all the parties on the Commission, so what was right on Friday, has to be right on Tuesday.

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

Will the Member give way?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I will.

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

I appreciate that the Member does not want to get too much into what was discussed, but I am sincerely baffled by the claim of the Alliance Party that there was a vote that was voted down by the other four parties. That did not happen. Is that your recollection?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I do not want to get into Commission meetings, but I have no recollection of a vote. I certainly have evidence in front of me of a motion before the House.

Members, you have been informed by some why they think that the amendment is competent, but I think that it is unworkable. Those who want to back the amendment, and they are perfectly entitled to do so, cannot back it with the view that it is going to bring a resolution to all the issues that have been expressed across the Chamber this morning, and by many Members over many years. That will not resolve the issue.

The fact is that when you go back to your constituency offices and meet your constituency office manager and your other members of staff, you will have to look them in the eye and tell them that you had the opportunity to right the wrong and you did not take it. If you back Mr Allister's amendment, it will not solve the issues of workers' terms and conditions, or pay. Go back to your staff in your constituency offices, and some of your staff may be sitting in offices in this Building, sit down in front of them, look them in the eye and say, "I had the opportunity to correct a wrong, but I backed an amendment in the full knowledge that it would fail".

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

Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am sorry, but I have a number of things to say; I may give way later in the debate.

The idea that there is a middle way is a myth. There are always alternatives, but the questions that you have to ask yourself are: what is workable and what do we need to do now to ensure that the terms and conditions and pay of our staff are rectified? What you need to do is back the Commission's motion. If you want to prolong the situation, back the amendment. If you want to move towards the 2011 Act, that can be done, but it will take about a year and it will take significant discussion. However, as a Commission member, given my experience around this motion, am I seriously expected to believe if I negotiated a Bill with other Commission members it would pass through the House? I would have serious doubts about that, given my experience over the past 72 hours. So, folks, the choice is simple: you either act now or you delay. That is the choice; there is no middle way.

Quite rightly, members of the public and some commentators want accountability in this area, and so they should. Mistakes were made in the past and things should have been done better, but there are things in the IFRP report that we should continue with. Many of the accountability mechanisms recommended in the report should be retained in any fresh Commission determination. It will not be the Commission managing MLA allowances and claims; it will be the finance branch of the Assembly. The body that will manage the claims and expenses of MLAs will be the same body that does it now; it will not be the Commission members. The finance body here had a very difficult task and I am sure faced challenges from many Members over the previous determination, but I have to say one thing; they stuck rigidly by the rules, and I am confident that they will continue to do so. So, it will not be the Commission managing the affairs of Members; it will be the finance branch of the Assembly.

Some Members have suggested that it is an unusual set-up for MLAs to set their own allowances, but it happens in Scotland. Is Mr Carroll suggesting that the Scottish model is unfair, that the Scottish model does not have accountability or that the Scottish model is being abused by MSPs? I have no account of that happening, and if he has an example I would like to hear it. The Scottish model is what we are following. We follow the Scottish model in many other areas; it seems to be the in thing to do. So, there is accountability at the heart of this.

Members have also said, and quite rightly, that the public are angry about this. Maybe they are not right, because I do not know if the public are angry about it. I know that some commentators are angry about it, but some of them have something in common with us: they are paid from the public purse. That is where what we have in common ends, because I do not know how much that they are paid and I do not know what expenses claims they make. I do not know anything about that. Quite rightly, MLAs are held to a higher standard, and over the past number of years we have learned lots of lessons from the mistakes of the past as well as the opportunities, and that should continue.

I have already expressed my disappointment at the parties that signed up to the motion but are now backtracking from it. It is up to them to explain that. Ms Armstrong said that today is International Day of Parliamentarism. What confidence does it give the general public when the Commission of the Assembly agrees a motion on Friday and walks away from it on Tuesday? The one thing that the public are not is stupid; the public will see through all of that. If political parties have genuine concerns —.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I will in one moment.

Do political parties have genuine concerns about the interests of the public or are they reacting to the latest commentary show, radio show, TV show, article or whatever it may be. As Mr Allister said, the public will not forget the past, and nor should they, but they will not be fooled either. They are not foolish; they will examine these matters. The public who come into our constituency offices on a daily basis or phone us appreciate the work that we do for them, but, nine times out of 10, the first people they make contact with are the staff in our constituency offices. Those staff have to deal with some very harrowing cases. We can all recount them. People sometimes come to us when they are at their very lowest, and those staff are paid low wages, have terrible terms and conditions and listen to casework that goes home with them at the end of the day.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. Is he aware that a person's grade-3 member of staff will take 19 years to reach the top of their pay scale?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Yes, and some of those who are criticising us for doing this would certainly not work under those terms and conditions. We owe it to the staff.

I am shocked at Mr Carroll. People Before Profit: the clue is in —.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

No, I will not.

The clue is in the title: People Before Profit. Mr Carroll will go back to his office today and sit in front of his member of staff and say, "I had the opportunity to bring your terms and conditions into line with the other staff who work in this Building and I did not take it". How can he stand on picket lines and support —?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

No, I will not. You had your chance.

How can he stand on picket lines for public-sector workers and demand proper terms and conditions when he has the opportunity to do it today for female workers in particular, who are terribly discriminated against in this institution? How can you stand on a picket line and say —

[Interruption.]

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order. I ask that remarks are addressed through the Chair.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

How can he stand on a picket line and tell them that he stands up for workers' pay? He has an opportunity today, as an employer — he is the employer, as everyone else in the Chamber is — to go through the Lobbies and vote to improve terms and conditions for staff.

I will close on this. I am happy, as a Commission member, that, as part of the terms and conditions of the next determination, those Members who want to be set to an independent body can have the ability to sign out of it. They can wait for the independent body, but I —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

— and other Commission members are determined to right the wrong now.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Some Members

Aye.

Some Members

No.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Clear the Lobbies. The Question will be put again in three minutes. I remind Members that we should continue to uphold social distancing and that Members who have proxy voting arrangements in place should not come into the Chamber.

Order. Before the Assembly divides, I remind Members that, as per Standing Order 112, the Assembly has proxy voting arrangements in place. Members who have authorised another Member to vote on their behalf are not entitled to vote in person and should not enter the Lobbies. It is important that, during a Division, social distancing in the Chamber continue to be observed. In order to facilitate that, I ask Members to do the following: any Members in the Chamber who are not due to vote in person should consider leaving the Chamber until the Division has concluded. Those Members who wish to vote in the Lobbies on the opposite side of the Chamber to which they are sitting should leave the Chamber via the nearest door and enter the relevant Lobby via the Rotunda. Those remaining Members who are sitting closest to the Lobby doors should enter the Lobbies first, and any Member who has voted may then wish to leave the Chamber until the Division has concluded. If a Member needs to vote in both Lobbies, he or she should not leave the Chamber.

I remind Members of the need to be patient at all times, to follow the instructions of the Lobby Clerks and to respect the need for social distancing.

Question, that the amendment be made, put a second time. The Assembly divided.

Ayes 20; Noes 67

AYES

Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Ms Armstrong, Ms Bailey, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Butler, Mr Carroll, Mr Chambers, Mr Dickson, Mrs Long, Mr Lyttle, Mr Muir, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Stewart, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann, Miss Woods

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Allister, Mr Beattie

NOES

Ms Anderson, Dr Archibald, Mr Boylan, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Ms S Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Catney, Mr Clarke, Ms Dillon, Mrs Dodds, Ms Dolan, Mr Dunne, Mr Durkan, Mr Easton, Ms Ennis, Ms Flynn, Mrs Foster, Mr Frew, Mr Gildernew, Mr Givan, Ms Hargey, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Ms Hunter, Mr Irwin, Mr Kearney, Ms C Kelly, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr Lunn, Mr Lynch, Mr Lyons, Mr McAleer, Mr McCann, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Miss McIlveen, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Mr Middleton, Ms Mullan, Mr Murphy, Mr Newton, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Stalford, Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr Wells

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Gildernew, Mr Givan

The following Members voted in both Lobbies and are therefore not counted in the result: Mr Blair

Question accordingly negatived.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I wish to pause for a few moments to allow any Member who may have left the Chamber to return.

Main Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That this Assembly notes that Members' salaries and pensions are determined by an independent body and that there should be no change to that arrangement; agrees that alternative provision should be made for Members' allowances; and, in accordance with section 47 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, resolves that the Assembly Commission may determine the allowances payable to Members of the Assembly, the date from which such allowances are payable, which may be a date before or after the making of the determination or this resolution, and that the Commission shall publish any such determination.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments to allow us to make some changes at the Table.

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

Executive Committee Business

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Before we move to the item of business, I thank all those Members who were in touch with me during my recent illness. It was very much appreciated. I also thank the wonderful staff of ward 5B in the Ulster Hospital.

The next two motions are to approve statutory rules relating to the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) Regulations. There will be a single debate on both motions. I will ask the Clerk to read the first motion, and I will then call on the Minister to move it. The Minister will commence the debate on both motions. When all who wish to speak have done so, I will put the Question on the first motion. The second motion will then be read into the record, and I will call on the Minister to move it. The Question will then be put on that motion. If that is clear, we will proceed.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I beg to move

That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Amendment No. 5) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020 be approved.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Thank you. The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Thank you very much, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, and I welcome you back to your position. It is good to see you in better health again.

There are two motions before the Assembly today. With your permission, I will address both of them in my remarks. The pattern of these debates is now well known to Members. We bring a motion regarding the relaxations of restrictions that have already been made and Members then studiously avoid discussing the amendments and instead talk about the further restrictions that they would like to see or, indeed, any other COVID-related matter that they wish to discuss, testing, in the meantime, the patience of the Principal Deputy Speaker. I do not expect today to be any different.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Let me begin by outlining for Members the changes brought about by these regulations and the reasoning behind the Executive's decision-making. Regulation 4 was amended to allow those who provide holiday accommodation, such as hotels, bed and breakfasts, apartments, campsites and caravan parks, to prepare for their reopening by taking advance bookings. Whilst it is not subject to the motions being debated today, I am delighted that the Executive moved quickly thereafter to give the hospitality sector specific dates when it could reopen.

Our caravan parks and camping sites opened last Friday, and our hotels and other holiday accommodation, as well as restaurants, bars and coffee shops and visitor attractions, will reopen later this week. I am sure that all Members will agree that that is a positive step for a sector that has been particularly hard hit by the lockdown, especially at this time of year when everyone's mind turns to holidays.

Regulation 4 has also been amended to allow places of worship and community centres to open to provide day care for children. That relaxation allowed more parents and guardians and those providing childcare services to return to work, as well as improving the well-being of parents and children and increasing a sense of normality.

Significant and important amendments have been made to regulation 5, which is concerned with restrictions on movement. People who live alone have been able to form a small support unit with one other household, enabling the person to visit, stay over and spend more time with their support network. That is an important step to help to tackle isolation. The housing market has been opened up, allowing people to move house, visit estate agents, view properties and make arrangements for removals. That relaxation removes the negative physical and mental health impacts on households by not restricting house moves for longer than was absolutely necessary. People can leave their homes to attend to the needs or welfare of an animal or animals. Outdoor sports facilities are now open, and elite athletes can resume their training and use outdoor facilities as they prepare for major competitions.

Regulation 6 has been amended to allow marriages and civil partnerships to take place outdoors where the number attending is limited to 10. Members will agree that that relaxation offers benefits in personal well-being. We send our best wishes to couples who are now able to undertake those celebrations.

Regulation 6A was amended to allow outdoor gatherings of up to 10 people from different households, a relaxation that offers benefits in personal well-being.

Changes were made to Part 2 of schedule 2 to the regulations, which is concerned with businesses subject to restriction or closure, to allow for non-food retail to reopen. The changes were initially limited to certain sections of the retail trade and subsequently updated to include all retail. Those steps have brought about much-needed recovery for the retail sector, which has been particularly affected by the COVID-19 crisis. It is good news. People can leave their homes to buy goods, improving personal well-being and increasing the sense of normality as well as protecting the jobs of those who work in retail outlets and restoring livelihoods.

Technical amendments were made to correct a drafting error in the amendment (No. 3) regulations, which came into operation at 11.00pm on 19 May. They mean that it was not an offence to breach the restriction in regulation 6A relating to outdoor gatherings of up to six people.

We have been clear all along that the Executive will not be rushed into making decisions as a result of artificial deadlines. Equally, we have moved quickly and decisively, as circumstances have allowed, to bring about changes to help to restore our economy and society. The regulations have worked and continue to work. They have saved lives and have prevented our health system from being overwhelmed. However, the pathway out of lockdown and towards recovery has not always been smooth. It is regrettable but probably inevitable that inconsistencies arose when making such detailed regulations. We have addressed those at the earliest opportunity and will continue to do so.

Of course, not all changes have required new legislation. We have striven to ensure that the guidance is up to date and is available to everyone. In recent days, that has included guidance to the many who have been shielding since mid-March. They can now look forward to being able to meet others from 6 July and further relaxation of the shielding guidance after 31 July.

Strong communications are vital so that the bases for our decisions are understood, sectors have time to prepare and citizens clearly understand what we are asking them to do. While the approach so far has not been to take decisions on the basis of a timetable, we have recognised that some sectors benefit from indicative future dates. That means that our decisions are taken on the basis that sectors and citizens will have the information that they need, including some indicative dates, guidance where necessary and strong messaging.

Since the regulations that are subject to today's motion, the Executive have agreed further significant relaxations. Last week, we announced that indoor meetings of up to six people could take place within the home. We agreed that places of worship could reopen from 29 June and that hairdressers, barbers and other close-contact activities could reopen from 6 July.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I know that many Members are particularly pleased to hear that.

Additionally, we have agreed indicative reopening dates for a range of sectors and activities, including indoor gyms and sports courts — not as much enthusiasm for those, I see, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker

[Laughter]

— libraries, playgrounds and open-air museums. There will also be a gradual return of spectators at outdoor events. Those further indicative dates will allow the sectors involved to make preparations for safely restarting and reopening.

Another key tool is the Department of Health's test, trace and protect strategy, which will continue to play a key role in containing transmission as more relaxations are introduced. I urge us all, if contacted by that service, to play our part and act on the information provided and self-isolate or get tested, as appropriate.

I am pleased that we have been able to relax many of the restrictions that have had such a detrimental impact on the social and economic well-being of our citizens. However, the risk from COVID-19 remains, and it is still the case that citizen behaviour will determine outcomes in terms of transmission, morbidity and mortality.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I give way to Mr Allister.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Minister agree that the Executive's credibility in making requirements of citizens, particularly about social distancing and the number of people who can gather outside, is substantially undermined today by the fact that the deputy First Minister and other Members of the House were photographed and seen in flagrant breach, it would appear, of some of those regulations at the funeral of a terrorist? Does that not undermine the status of what the Executive require of others?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

First, I note that many people across Northern Ireland, have had to forgo family funerals and the traditional way in which they would grieve and mourn. That has come at a personal cost to many people. Therefore, although I have not seen any of the footage that Mr Allister refers to, I think it essential that we all provide leadership. We are all subject to the regulations in the same way. We all have to ensure that social distancing is adhered to and that the regulations are adhered to as well. That is particularly important for those of us in leadership, and I would expect it of everybody. There is a requirement and a responsibility on us all to ensure that that takes place. That brings me back to what I was saying. We are, obviously, moving further away from enforcement. With the increasing relaxation of the regulations, citizen behaviour becomes increasingly a product of choice. By relaxing the regulations we have given citizens more freedom, and I urge members of the public to use that freedom sensibly, because I do not want us to be in the situation that Leicester finds itself in today. We need to think of the health and well-being of each other and the huge societal and economic consequences of a return to lockdown. None of us wants to see a second wave of this deadly virus. Therefore, we will closely monitor the impact of the relaxation of the regulations, and we are prepared to introduce restrictions, if that is considered necessary to control the virus.

We now need to look beyond the response phase towards the actions that will be needed to ensure a robust and sustainable recovery, rebuild public services and restore more normal ways of living. The process is under way with the Executive. We have started the development of a comprehensive recovery strategy. Citizens issues are increasingly at the heart of the decisions that we need to take, now that the immediate crisis objectives are under control. That includes long-term health and economic and societal well-being.

The fact that 95% of the population have avoided the disease is a double-edged sword. It means that 95% of the population potentially remain at risk, so the need for caution remains. Social distancing will remain a vital part of the response and recovery phases. The precise advice may change over time and must be well thought through and explained. As was announced last week, the Executive agree that two metres remains the optimum distance in maintaining physical distancing where possible. However, where appropriate mitigations can be made, a distance of no less than one metre between people should be adhered to.

I know that Members will have additional questions and comments on the points that I have made, and I look forward to them. For now, however, I commend the regulations to the Assembly.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Thank you, Minister. Given that it is 12.55 pm and the Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The first item of business when we return will be Question Time.

The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 12.55 pm.

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

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask for the ruling of your office in the light of what we saw today, when the deputy First Minister attended the funeral of Bobby Storey, at which clear breaches of social distancing took place. I ask you to get a ruling from the Speaker's Office about whether the attendance will be looked at in line with the Members' code of conduct, given the clear breach of the regulations that are in place.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member has put his point on the record. I am not sure that it is a point of order for here. Others may wish to pursue the matter through other means. That is about as much as I can say at this stage. The point is on the record.

Oral Answers to Questions — Education

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Members will be aware that, as part of the phased resumption of Question Time, only listed questions will be asked of Ministers. Topical questions remain suspended until 4 July. Members who ask a listed question will be called to ask a supplementary question. I will keep that under review as we progress through Question Time, and it may become apparent that there is additional time for other Members to ask supplementary questions.

Questions 2 and 4 to the Minister of Education have been withdrawn.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

1. Dr Aiken asked the Minister of Education how he plans to communicate with principals and boards of governors on the reopening of schools as lockdown restrictions are eased. (AQO 493/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

My Department has established the Education Restart programme, which, working with a range of stakeholders, will put in place the detailed measures and guidance that will enable a safe phased reopening of schools. I am well aware that my Department cannot deliver the Education Restart programme without the support and confidence of the education workforce. Over the last number of weeks, my Department has been working to develop the required detailed guidance to support principals and boards of governors to reopen schools in August and September. The guidance has been co-designed with a practitioners group that consists of principals from across all sectors. Their insight has been invaluable, and their willingness to work at such intensity, above and beyond their day job, should be commended.

Schools are provided with regular updates via email and text message, and I wrote to all schools in advance of the initial guidance being issued. My Department has directly advised schools when further supplementary guidance has been published and will continue to do so.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I declare an interest as a member of a board of governors who spent three hours on a Zoom meeting last night trying to look at some of those issues.

The drip-feed of information on social media, which seems to have been put out merely to test the water, has been demoralising for many teachers and boards of governors and has created confusion. Will the Minister commit to the schools and parents of Northern Ireland that his Department will only give out guidance that is complete, coherent and gives some certainty and planning?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I take on board what the Member has said. Unfortunately, during the process, there were two or three occasions when documents were leaked. Sometimes, those documents were for discussion only, giving a range of options, but they were then portrayed on social media or in the wider media as, "Here is what is happening", when it was only one of the options on the table and, indeed, one that had not gone down. That has not been helpful. The leaking of that information by anybody — it came from a number of different sources — has been deeply unhelpful.

On the guidance, there is an attempt to balance, as much as possible, giving complete guidance and certainty, notwithstanding the fact that there is a slightly moveable situation with the overall position, with trying to make sure that the guidance is put in place as quickly as possible. It is about striking that balance. If we were to wait for every piece of guidance that will form part of the overall picture to be there at once, it would probably not be available until some point towards the end of the summer.

We have tried to phase in the main guidance on the new normal school day and any bespoke guidance on, for example, special schools, on remote learning, as soon as we can get it. On the one hand, the message is that people want complete guidance; on the other hand, they want maximum notice.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

3. Mr Buckley asked the Minister of Education for his assessment of how many children will return to school for face-to-face teaching in September. (AQO 495/17-22)

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

11. Mr Frew asked the Minister of Education how a reduction in the social distancing guidelines, from 2 metres to 1 metre, would impact plans to reopen schools. (AQO 503/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

With permission, I intend to answer question 3 and question 11 together.

My strategic objective is to achieve the maximum face-to-face teaching time for all pupils at the earliest opportunity. Indeed, the intention is to reach the point of five full days a week, but I will come to that later. The guidance sets out that there will be a minimum of 40% face-to-face teaching in primary schools and a minimum of 50% face-to-face teaching in post-primary schools, with the balance provided by remote learning. However, that is, if you like, a minimum. If schools can achieve more than that in the current circumstances, they should do so.

Whilst the aim is to get as many pupils as possible back to classroom teaching in September 2020, I am well aware that every school is different and every classroom is different. Consequently, in the responses that will have to be put in place, there will be a practical limit to what some schools can do.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his clarity and for his desire to see schools fully reopen five days a week from September, as the current guidelines permit. The Minister might be aware that schools have been publishing their new timetables, which show great deviation among schools. That has caused much alarm among parents who are getting back to regularised working patterns. For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister confirm that, if the scientific evidence continues on the same pathway, he will bring to the Executive and the House a recommendation to remove one-metre social distancing and apply a classroom and social school bubble solution complemented by a hygiene protocol to ensure a full return to education in September?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

Let me make it absolutely clear to the Member: I believe that we are on the right pathway and that we are on a trajectory for further changes to be made. My intention, if that continues, is to bring forward further proposals, before the end of the summer, to enable all schools to be open to every pupil five days a week. That is to the advantage of teachers, parents and schools, but, most of all, it is to the advantage of pupils. It is highly desirable that we reach that point.

The levels of protection that need to be put in place can, in those circumstances, be achieved by different methods. One of the advantages of the guidance that has been issued is that it puts in place a range of mitigation measures that can operate in almost any circumstances.

Let me also make it clear that the guidance is based on the current medical position. If, come September, we are still restricted by that medical position, the guidance that we have issued sets out the minimum that schools should do. There should be no ceiling to what they can do; indeed, I want to make sure that, if we are in that position, no school, in any shape or form, goes below the minimum. Schools should always strive to achieve the maximum. I hope that, in certain regards, that aspect of the advice given will be overtaken by events and that we can reach a point, before the start of the new school year, where what has to be put in place is different and we see every child in Northern Ireland return for five days a week.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Again, for the benefit of Hansard, I encourage all Members to address the Chair so that what they say can be clearly picked up.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister, at a time when we need leadership, for his positive leadership throughout the crisis.

The Minister rightly points out the massive detrimental impact on the education and, indeed, later life of any child who misses a day of school. Will the Minister outline the plans for social distancing in an early years setting? Will it apply? How will it apply?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

Undoubtedly, very young children — this applies to early years but has an impact beyond that stage — cannot reasonably be expected to remain apart from each other during the day. It is not conducive to play-based learning and development. Taking into account the medical evidence, funded preschool education settings will be asked to organise children into small groups of protected bubbles with consistent membership appropriate to the size and characteristics of the setting. Children in those groups will not be required to socially distance. If you talk to any medical expert, they will say that that is simply not practical. We need to find other mitigation measures, and I think that bubbling will be the route. Social distancing can be applied between the bubbles and adults. Medical experts tell us that there is little danger of transference between children and that we need to mitigate between children and adults. On that basis, I envisage that preschool groups and other early years settings should be in a position to return to a full-time position come the beginning of the year.

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

5. Mr McGrath asked the Minister of Education for an update on the implementation of the funding scheme for regional and local voluntary youth organisations. (AQO 497/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

Delivery of youth services is the responsibility of the Education Authority, so the implementation of a new funding scheme is in line with my Department’s Priorities for Youth policy, which commits to replacing historic funding arrangements with a more consistent, fair, coherent and cost-effective scheme.

After engagement with the sector, key stakeholders and political representatives, including a full consultation on the principles of the scheme, the EA launched its new funding scheme for regional and local voluntary youth organisations on 3 March 2020. In response to the pandemic, I agreed that the implementation of the scheme be postponed until 1 April 2021. The EA Youth Service continues to work to implement the scheme for April 2021. It has reported that there has been consistent engagement with the online application process and that a significant number of applications have already been made across all funding streams.

I am sure that the Member will be aware that there is not always a consistent view within any sector, particularly the youth sector. There are a number of views on the new funding scheme, and a number of organisations have written to me directly. Some wish the scheme to move at pace — perhaps even a greater pace — and others are looking for a further postponement. After reflection, I wrote to the EA and asked for a short postponement to the application dates — that was raised by some of the uniformed organisations, in particular —but with a view to ensuring that the implementation of the new funding scheme remained at 1 April 2021.

The ongoing development and implementation of the scheme will be kept under review to ensure that it continues to support the services that assist in meeting the needs of our young people.

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

The Minister's answer will give some reassurance to the sectors on the timetables. We are all aware of the critical importance of funding. Will the Minister provide an update on an associated fund that is referred to as "the Minister's fund"? It was the Member for Upper Bann, I think, who introduced it a number of years ago. It was worth over £1 million and was to help tackle problems in disadvantaged areas and provide outreach support to groups of young people who would be on the streets. Has that fund ceased? Has the money been taken back to the Department? Is the money still with the EA and being used for other purposes?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I do not want one of the Members opposite to accuse me of besmirching his name, but I am tempted to ask if the Minister took it away with him when he left office, but, given the fact that he is still in the Building, I presume that he did not. Rather than give the Member a partial answer, I will write to him with the details.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

6. Ms Ennis asked the Minister of Education what plans he has to address the shortage of autism-specific learning centres in post-primary schools in the Newry and Mourne area. (AQO 498/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

The Education Authority is responsible for the provision of autism support units. Any significant change to a school, such as the addition of an autism support unit, requires the publication of a development proposal, which is a statutory process.

The EA’s current proposals for change are listed in its action plan for 2019-2021, which is broken down into local government districts. The action plan for the Newry, Mourne and Down local government district contains two actions in relation to autism-specific provision in post-primary schools: one for the Downpatrick area and one at St Mark’s High School, Warrenpoint. Those changes would form part of a regional approach to reconfiguring special schools and pupil support provision at mainstream schools.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Minister for his response. I am sure the Minister agrees that it is wholly unacceptable that, if your child has autism and you want them educated in a mainstream setting, you have to travel outside the south Down or Newry, Mourne and Down District Council area. That is unacceptable and it has to end. I encourage the Minister to use his influence with the EA to make sure that these development plans are expedited, so that parents and their children are not further disadvantaged.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

The Member raises a very important point about the provision for autism, and the wider context. There are two responses to that. For placements for children with particular special educational needs, we are working with EA to make sure that, whatever the longer-term position, we provide interim solutions that can be put in place so that there is adequate provision, as we move into September and beyond.

I am keen to see any development proposals move ahead as quickly as possible. The former Minister, sitting opposite me, will be able to testify to that. The one slight restriction we have on development proposals is that, as Minister, I am the person who will give a legal ruling on whether to agree a particular development proposal. Often, proposals are so obviously virtuous that it would be difficult for anybody to say no to, but legally I am bound not to take a pejorative view, for or against any particular development proposal. We want to see the overall process moving as quickly as possible. Where we can find uncontroversial development proposals, I want to see if there is a different methodology by which those can be fast-tracked.

Obviously, I cannot comment as regards individual development proposals. Apart from the broader process, it is difficult for me to say, "I want this individual proposal done at a quicker pace", because I have to give the legal ruling on that. However, I am sympathetic to the points the Member has raised.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

7. Mr Blair asked the Minister of Education what support services are in place for children with special educational needs following the closure of schools and special schools as a result of COVID-19. (AQO 499/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

Vulnerable children, including those with statements of special educational needs, have been prioritised since the start of lockdown, with schools, including special schools, encouraged to remain open for the provision of supervised learning.

Each child with SEN has their own individual needs. Sometimes, we have a stereotypical view of special educational needs and there is a wide spectrum of those needs. Approaches are, therefore, tailored to the individual pupil by the teacher, in conjunction with the school's SEN coordinator (SENCO).

Schools put in place innovative arrangements, reflective of pupil age, developmental stages and their SEN. Examples of this include learning packs, online learning, and sensory and other specialist equipment that has been delivered to homes. The Education Authority SEN Pupil Support Services have provided ongoing support to parents, children and young people during COVID-19 by telephone, and have developed an extensive suite of online resources. The Middletown Centre for Autism has remained open and operational, to deliver high-quality remote support to children and young people with autism and their families. They have also developed new online training for educational professionals, including classroom assistants, and are delivering a number of webinars during the summer.

The Continuity of Learning project, initiated by the Department and coordinated by EA, provides an opportunity for practitioners, school leaders and education support organisations to work together to produce and disseminate high-quality online guidance, providing for the emotional health, resilience and well-being of learners, and facilitating the progression of learning.

I recently issued guidance to schools which provides advice and support designed to bring together what we are learning about emerging practice, during this unprecedented time for the education sector.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Given that so few direct support services have been in place for the most vulnerable special educational needs pupils during COVID-19, I ask whether the Minister has secured the special school places for the 150 pupils still unplaced, who are waiting for placements?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

We are working with the Education Authority, because theirs is the direct responsibility to place pupils. Let me make it absolutely clear. Not everybody gets the place that they want. At the beginning of each summer, there is always going be a small number of pupils who will be unplaced. To have this number of unplaced children with special educational needs is totally unacceptable.

We are working with the Education Authority. Indeed, last week, while I was in the House, my officials met representatives of the EA. The issue has arisen through long-term systemic failures in the Education Authority, which was subject to an internal report. While some work has been done on that, the level of progress has probably been limited by the response to COVID. We are trying to work with the EA to provide longer-term solutions so that issues of that nature do not arise again, while also being mindful of the fact that whatever long-term solution is put in place by way of a development proposal or, indeed, long-term provision, that is not something that will automatically solve the problem for those particular families. We are looking to solve it for every family. As such, we have been working up a suite of interim solutions with the EA that will feed into the longer term in order to ensure that, from September, all those children will have placements. In particular, that is about providing additional facilities and opportunities because, obviously, some of the limitations that exist with regard to SEN placements do not simply apply to schools that have pressures with mainstream admissions.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

8. Ms Sugden asked the Minister of Education how his Department plans to support teaching and non-teaching staff to return to the classroom for the 2020-21 academic year. (AQO 500/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

My Department's key focus has been to support and secure, as far as possible, the continued learning of pupils at home and in school during the current pandemic and beyond. The major strategy for achieving that will continue to be the production and dissemination of high-quality support and guidance for schools, learners and parents.

My Department, in collaboration with the EA, CCMS and CCEA, has collated, developed and disseminated a wide range of resources that will support schools and teachers as they prepare for the new school year. Recent examples include operational guidance on moving to blended learning, feedback and assessment, transition and pupil engagement.

My Department has also produced system-level guidance for schools on supporting remote learning and guidance for schools on curriculum planning for 2020-21. The key message of the guidance is that the aim for 2020-21 is to support pupils to be motivated to learn and to become skilled and independent learners through a curriculum that gives equal emphasis to knowledge, understanding and skills.

Furthermore, I have directed CCEA to put arrangements in place to ensure that young people can progress to the next stage of their learning with confidence in the qualifications that they have attained. CCEA is also exploring how young people can best be supported in the upcoming year to realise their potential to achieve high-quality qualifications.

The COVID-19 situation continues to move rapidly. Further guidance will, therefore, be provided and updated as the context changes.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his answer. If the current advice remains in September that the distance between teachers and pupils must be two metres, or even if that were reduced to one metre, what challenges would that present for teaching assistants, in particular, who support children with special educational needs in the classroom? If we move towards a classroom bubble, again, how would that work for teaching assistants who may support children across various classrooms?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I will make two points. First, with regard to movement and the extent to which a classroom could be hermetically sealed, particularly for adults, to the extent that there would be no movement, part of the aim of the bubble would be to try to minimise cross-contact, even, for instance, for those at the upper reaches of the school, where a bubble would not necessarily occur. Therefore, the challenge is not simply with the bubble but with minimising movements between classes and indeed, for example, trying to get particular children to be in the same seats as much as possible. Secondly, we are following PHA guidance with regard to teaching assistants specifically. One significant element of that will be the issue of PPE. There is an acceptance that, in general, in most circumstances, teachers would not routinely require PPE, but that some PPE would be available. However, there are those who deal with children with particular special needs or vulnerabilities, or who provide more intimate care of a child. Those are the areas that have been highlighted in the guidance. Again, it will be on the basis of following the PHA guidance. There may well need to be additional protection. The health and safety of our children and the workforce in general will be paramount.

We also need to be careful that unnecessary levels of PPE are not used. If, for example, all our teachers were going about routinely in PPE, I suspect that, particularly for younger children, it would not only be unnecessary but it could be quite frightening. It will be about ensuring that what is there and the detail of the guidance that is given is consistent with the public health advice at the time.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

9. Mr Irwin asked the Minister of Education, in relation to COVID-19, for his assessment of the long-term impact of prolonged school closures. (AQO 501/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. Everyone will have experienced the COVID-19 pandemic uniquely. The short-term disruption has been felt by families and pupils across Northern Ireland. The longer-term impact is more difficult to estimate. Indeed, ultimately, that will be something that we can all make educated guesswork on, but, until we see the impact as pupils return in the autumn, it will be difficult to assess 100%.

Our school leaders and teachers have been working extremely hard over recent months to build, support and develop pupils’ learning. Whilst it is important not to underestimate the task facing schools, evidence indicates that missed learning content is not likely to be a long-term problem for most pupils, as long as they are given supportive tools to facilitate learning.

As pupils return to school for the new term, our schools will recognise the key importance of ensuring that pupils have good emotional health and well-being, are engaged and motivated to learn and have the tools and skills that they require for learning.

While many pupils will have coped well with engaging with remote learning activities, some pupils may return to school disengaged and require support to re-engage and move on with learning. I am confident that schools will identify and support those pupils who are most likely to experience difficulties in engaging with learning.

On the long-term impact, schools will be considering the ways that they can address the experiences of COVID-19 in the school environment. It is important to help pupils share and reflect on their experiences, to help them consolidate their thinking and then be ready to move forward.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his answer. What is the likely impact of educational disadvantage of the COVID-19 pandemic?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

Taking a rough guide of children and young people who are entitled to free school meals, overall, the figures suggest that, in general, those children have been doing less well in school than other pupils. So, it is a priority to ensure that that attainment gap is closed. I am obviously concerned that those school closures have had the opposite effect.

Research indicates that children who have missed significant periods of schooling due to authorised absences see a larger impact on attainment. I will be looking at it on two fronts: first, to re-engage schools to provide support for continuity of learning. I am looking to put in a bespoke programme to target those children from socially deprived areas to provide that additional support; secondly, I hope to move fairly swiftly on the expert group dealing with underachievement in schools, which is identified in 'New Decade, New Approach'.

I am also conscious that, as well as the learning difficulties that children will have, there will be a clear range of mental health difficulties, emotional difficulties and behavioural difficulties. I am keen to support those issues as well. Every Minister would always like to be able to spend more, but there is an increase in the Department of Education's budget this year to deal with mental health issues and support. So, we will look to develop schemes around that, which can provide support to our young people.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

10. Mr Chambers asked the Minister of Education to outline any contingency plans he has in place for a second wave of COVID-19 in autumn 2020. (AQO 502/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

The COVID pandemic has presented significant challenges right across our society. This has been a particularly difficult time for children and young people, parents and carers and the education workforce.

The education workforce, alongside parents, has risen to the challenge and responded in an effective, innovative manner to minimise the impact of the disruption, while appreciating that distance learning is, and ultimately can be, no long-term substitute for the benefits of attending school.

We are extremely fortunate that the strengths of our education system have supported and facilitated the transition to distance and online learning. We have a very skilled workforce that has been committed to adapting to the current situation. We also have something that is the envy of other jurisdictions: a centralised education ICT infrastructure framework, with substantial capacity and a wide range of applications to enhance learning in a secure environment.

Plans for reopening schools are flexible and will be guided by the prevailing scientific evidence. The guidance provided has set out minimum standards for face-to-face teaching based on current planning assumptions, and I indicated earlier that it is my hope that schools will be able to deliver more than that and achieve the maximum as we move ahead. However, some of this will depend on school size.

The guidance given to schools can be a template for flexibility, not only for the circumstances of individual schools, but to enable schools to adapt their provision in the light of a potentially changing wider situation. All guidance prepared by my Department on the safe reopening of schools will be reviewed regularly and updated as appropriate.

I am also conscious that we must proactively plan for any further disruption that may occur. My Department and its partners are working to capture lessons learned from the current management of COVID-19 disruption to ensure that there is increased preparedness for the future. It is also important to capture any positive lessons learned — for example, the more extensive use of technology for teaching — and learn how those lessons can best be applied in the future for the benefit of teachers and learners, and, indeed, the wider economy. Work will increase in the coming weeks to ensure that the Department and the education system can respond quickly and effectively in the event of further disruption.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

Minister, I have just come from a meeting of the Health Committee. Despite one member there considering or suggesting that we are actually through the pandemic, I think that we all realise that the virus has not gone away. If, God forbid, we should find ourselves back in the situation of March, would you consider a complete closure of schools again or would you look at a different approach?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

The Executive as a whole will be driven by the wider medical situation and by the evidence. I think that anything that leads to the closure of schools is very much the last-case scenario that we want. It is undoubtedly the case that, in the impact on learning — more, indeed, from the point of view that children are distanced from their peer learners — it will have a very detrimental effect on them as individuals, as well as impact on the economy, on parents and on schools.

I would look to take every step possible before reaching that point, and it would only be where it was necessary. We need to look at the wider implications for society, not simply for education but for mental health, and the impact that a complete shutdown has on the economy, not just from a financial point of view but from a broader health perspective. Any complete lockdown will simply increase poverty, and poverty, as well as the virus, will kill. We need to have, as much as possible, bespoke arrangements that can deal with the situation.

As I indicated, one of the advantages of the guidance is that, if there is a shift, either towards a complete recovery of schools or, in the worst-case scenario, a more limited provision, the advantage of the development of remote learning in particular has been that there is an opportunity to move along the spectrum if we absolutely need to. Let me reiterate that, while I completely take on board the Member's point that we are not through the pandemic, it is ultimately about trying to cope with it as best we can. The overriding objective and aim that I and, I think, the Executive have is to see schools fully open for all children, all the time, five days a week.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

12. Mr Beattie asked the Minister of Education how many schools, across all sectors, have submitted development proposals to his Department to allow the teaching of Key Stage 4. (AQO 504/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

To date, no development proposals have been submitted to my Department for the establishment of Key Stage 4 provision at a post-primary school. With the exception of junior schools, which are included in the Dickson plan, and St John the Baptist's College in Portadown, post-primary schools already offer Key Stage 4 provision.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his very pointed answer to what was a very pointed question, and I congratulate the Minister for his leadership in taking that pragmatic decision, outside of process, to allow St John the Baptist's College to become a Key Stage 4 school. That really did transform things for a lot of people in that area. Therefore, I ask the Minister to show the same leadership and the same pragmatic thinking to allow Lurgan Junior High School to become a Key Stage 4 school so that we no longer have to send pupils to the Lurgan campus of Craigavon Senior High School, which has systemic and long-term safeguarding issues.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I am always slightly concerned when the Member starts to praise me, because I think that there is always a potential sting in the tail. Let me make it clear that specific provision has been made for this year and this year alone to allow St John the Baptist's College to provide a syllabus at Key Stage 4, given the circumstances where an overwhelming proportion of parents — around 90%, I think — were keen for interim arrangements. That is not the same as a development proposal, and, indeed, it is not necessarily the acceptance of Key Stage 4 at St John the Baptist's College. This is about an interim position, and, consequently, St John the Baptist's College will still need to come forward with a development proposal, which will be considered on its merits.

Similarly, if Lurgan Junior High or, indeed, any other school, as part of the overall process, comes forward with a development proposal, it will be taken on its merits. I am acutely aware across the board of the need to ensure that, whatever provision is made for our pupils, it is done in a safe and healthy environment, particularly given some of the conditions. I appreciate some of the constraints that are there with some of the physical buildings in the system.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

13. Mr O'Toole asked the Minister of Education what support he plans to provide to the childcare sector to enable parents to go back to work. (AQO 505/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. My Department has worked closely with the Department of Health to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and, in particular, to provide the childcare sector with a support scheme to address concerns surrounding the viability of childcare providers for the period April to June. In addition, we are considering further funding, which has been sought from the Department of Finance, to continue support for the childcare sector in July and August. The details of this follow-on scheme are being developed and will be finalised based on the amount of funding provided by the Executive. The primary objective will be to support the reopening of childcare provision while they adhere to the Department of Health's COVID-19 guidelines. For some, this may necessitate operating at reduced capacity for a period of time, hence the need for ongoing support.

In broader terms, the childcare recovery plan is designed to enable the childcare sector to keep pace with the gradual reopening of the economy. We need to see some alignment between the two, and the plan ensures that all parents are now eligible to access childcare in order to return to work. As schools begin to open, it will be important to ensure alignment between school restart plans and childcare provision so that the impact on working parents is kept to a minimum. If a child is not at school, the availability of childcare may become essential. However, the strategic objective is to have children back in school on a full-time basis as soon as possible. As we move towards what is sometimes referred to as the new normal, the importance of quality childcare provision for our children, our parents and our economy has been recognised.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I appreciate that he said that there has been an intention to support the childcare sector, but, unfortunately, many parents and, indeed, parts of the childcare sector do not feel that that support has come through. Indeed, we know that there has been a challenge for many in the sector accessing that money.

I do not want to preempt the June monitoring round, but can he assure me that if money is announced for additional support for the childcare sector, it will get properly to the childcare sector, the sector will have the information that it needs to access it and parents will have a clear road map to how they can go back to work and how, if other kids in the family are going to school, that can work clearly and in a joined-up and coherent way? Unfortunately, there is a huge amount of confusion out there at the minute, Minister.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I understand that. It is clear that, if there is further funding, it has to be with an adjustment to the system. Some of those adjustments have taken place. For example, one of the problems was that, initially, there was a very narrow definition of key workers by the Department of Health. To be fair, the Department of Health has accepted that and has aligned its key worker situation with the rest of the Executive's position. From yesterday, we have moved to a position beyond key workers; everybody is in a position to apply to access childcare in those settings.

There have also been issues around the progression of the roll-out of money. Part of the problem is around the uptake and applications. With the range of other schemes available and alternative options, a lot of childcare settings were seeking another route. It is critical that we have that alignment, particularly with regard to the reopening of schools. The pressure on the childcare sector, if we do not get a full reopening of schools, will exasperate the present situation.

Additionally, the road map that the Executive have adopted around childcare recovery acknowledges changes within the family setting that will allow informal childcare to take place. That is not only important in providing alternatives but means that there will not be the same pressure or temptation for people to use unregistered childcare, which, in itself, has safeguarding issues.

It is a combination of all those things. We need to make sure that everything is aligned and, without sounding too much like an economist, that the supply and demand march hand in hand as we move forward, over the next few months.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

14. Mr Muir asked the Minister of Education to outline the guidance his Department provides to post-primary schools on admissions. (AQO 506/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. My Department provides guidance to, amongst others, principals and boards of governors of post-primary schools on the arrangements for transfer from primary to post-primary. Information is contained in a number of circulars, the most recent being 'Circular 2016/15 - The procedure for transfer from primary to post-primary education'. The circular includes information and advice on a range of issues and lays out the respective roles of the Department of Education, the Education Authority, post-primary schools, primary schools and parents. It provides information on boards of governors’ statutory obligations to set admissions criteria to be used in the event of a school being oversubscribed with applicants. It also provides examples of criteria that my Department recommends and recommends against. How a school sets its criteria will determine a rank order of pupils for each school. The circular also provides advice on areas such as the age that a child is eligible to transfer to post-primary education; the process for setting admissions and enrolment numbers, and the process for varying those numbers; how the admissions procedures should operate; the arrangements for admissions appeals; the exceptional circumstances procedure; and the operation of waiting lists.

As the Member can see, it is not only comprehensive but complex. Boards of governors have a legal duty to have regard to the Department’s guidance when setting admissions criteria.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

For the record, I declare that I am on the board of governors for Priory Integrated College in Holywood. Over recent times, the Minister has said that there needs to an alternative proposed to academic selection and the transfer test. The Department issued it. After months of disrupted learning, why does the Minister not advocate that all schools follow the guidance that has already been issued by his Department?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

Sorry, I did not say that there should be an alternative to academic selection, and I am sure one of the Members sitting opposite would be very quick to point that out. I have said that some of those who are advocating the setting aside of a transfer test, for instance, for this year, have not provided an alternative. That is different.

Ultimately, it is within schools' powers and constraints to apply their own admissions criteria. I have raised concern about some of the schools that are seeking to move away from academic selection for next year. At present, what they suggest as the most likely route is one that seems to be based on the pupil's connections with the school. For example, a sibling at the school, their mother or father went to the school or a staff member at the school is a parent. That runs the danger of places at those schools being selected, effectively, by the old school tie, a hereditary grammar school place. Anyone making an argument that that is a fairer system to the complexities or constraints of a test is not providing a sensible solution.

I am aware that there will be some schools of a bilateral nature that may move between having a percentage of their pupils who are non-selective and some who are selective. In many ways there is a logic that if they want to adjust between those criteria then that is perfectly fine. However, the point is that I do not believe that a fair alternative has not been provided. I support the right of schools to use academic selection when they are oversubscribed, and I also believe that the use of academic selection has, overall, worked well for our society and our school system.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Members, our time is up for questions to the Minister of Education.

Oral Answers to Questions — Finance

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

We now turn to questions to the Minister of Finance. Tom Buchanan is not here. We will take our ease for a few moments. With the existing restrictions, not all Members can be in the Chamber and that is the case on this occasion.

I now call Mr Buchanan to ask the first question.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

1. Mr T Buchanan asked the Minister of Finance whether he will make funding for additional police officers, as agreed in New Decade, New Approach, available as a matter of urgency. (AQO 508/17-22)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

In the 'New Decade, New Approach' document (NDNA) the British and Irish Governments set out a number of priorities for the Executive, including increasing police numbers to 7,500. However, the funding package accompanying NDNA falls well short of the amount needed to deliver all those priorities.

In terms of length of process, therefore, the key factor to increase police numbers to 7,500 will be the availability of Executive funding. I met the Justice Minister prior to setting the Budget in 2020-21. At that point the PSNI’s proposals to increase police numbers were still under development.

The Department of Justice has subsequently submitted a strategic outline business case seeking Department of Finance approval for the PSNI to proceed to the outline business case stage for an additional 600 officers, at a cost of £40 million per annum. Subject to the outcome of the appraisal process, it will be for Department of Justice to bid for any additional funding. The Executive will consider that in light of the funding available.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his response. It is disappointing that the money still has not been delivered to increase police numbers, as is in 'New Decade, New Approach'. Will the Minister give any indication or timeline for when he intends to come to the House with a more positive response, to say that the money has now been delivered to deliver on the commitment in 'New Decade, New Approach' to bring the police up to the quota that they are looking for?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

If the money had been delivered by the Governments, as they proposed and promised, there would be no question over how the Executive have to meet these commitments.

I have no doubt that the Executive takes the NDNA commitments very seriously. There is a range of commitments but we have to get a process. We could not just agree on 11 January and then on 12 January start the recruitment of police officers. There is a process. I have engaged with the Department of Justice, which has indicated the outline business case and that it is preparing to move to a business case. That is a process that has to be gone through. Then, when that process reaches its conclusion and a proposition is brought to the Executive. Part of our return to this Chamber was to honour the commitments that we made in the 'New Decade, New Approach' document. It would be much better if the Government honoured their financial commitment, and then, as I said, there would not even need to be a conversation in the Executive as to how these things would be funded.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

2. Mr Carroll asked the Minister of Finance for his assessment of the 2019-2020 Northern Ireland Civil Service pay offer. (AQO 509/17-22)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

My assessment is that, at 2·65% of the pay bill, the 2019-2020 Civil Service pay award represents an above-inflation pay rise.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I thank the Minister for his reply, even if it was short. In a previous debate, his party colleague Mr O'Dowd referenced the need to tackle low pay, which I agree with. Given that Civil Service workers have been working hard throughout the pandemic, and for many years a lot of them have been forced to take up an extra job, will the Minister commit to paying Civil Service workers an above-inflation offer, to help deal with the extra costs and pressures of everyday life, especially those associated with COVID-19?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

We voted for the Budget to give low-paid workers an increase, but I think that the Member did not vote for it. I fully accept that workers are under pressure, which is why we made an offer to the trade unions. Unfortunately, they could not fully consult on it because of the COVID restrictions. The overall award is worth 2·65% on the Civil Service pay bill. The award for civil servants at the lowest pay grade was 3%, which was a further 2% increase on 2019, meaning that the lowest paid civil servants have received a 5% increase across the last two years. I fully recognise the commitment of many in our Civil Service who have stepped up to the plate during the pandemic and the emergency that we have faced, and it is important to recognise that with an above-inflation pay rise, which is what I have offered.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

3. Mr Chambers asked the Minister of Finance why the recommendations in the Public Accounts Committee report 'Transforming Land Registers: The LandWeb Project' were not implemented fully. (AQO 510/17-22)

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

8. Mr Dunne asked the Minister of Finance, in the light of the recent Northern Ireland Audit Office report, whether he plans to review Land and Property Services' LandWeb project. (AQO 515/17-22)

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

12. Mr Irwin asked the Minister of Finance why people registering land and property sales were overcharged. (AQO 519/17-22)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

A LeasCheann Comhairle, with your permission, I will group questions 3, 8 and 12, as they were all asked in response to the Audit Office's report on the LandWeb system.

I fully accept the findings of the Audit Office's report, which was published on 16 June, and my Department is implementing its findings. The PAC report from 2010 made eight recommendations, most of which have been implemented. One that remains outstanding relates to the contractual arrangements for LandWeb and measures to demonstrate value for money.

The Audit Office report acknowledges that cost savings of £1·8 million were negotiated as part of the 2019 to 2021 contract extension. I expect that further improvements will be secured from the negotiations on the arrangements for delivering the service after 2021, which is when the current LandWeb agreement expires. Those negotiations have already started and are being led by the permanent secretary in my Department. The Audit Office has welcomed that and the involvement of the British Government Commercial Function’s complex transactions team.

Two of the PAC’s recommendations were on the fees that were charged by Land Registry. Those were addressed when a revised fees order was introduced in 2014. However, the combination of an increase in property transactions and improved efficiency in Land Registry saw surpluses generated again from 2017 onwards. My Department is working on a new fees order that will take effect in 2021.

I cannot say anything further on these issues as the Public Accounts Committee has indicated its intention to take evidence on the Audit Office’s update report on LandWeb. Indeed, it has prioritised it to be the subject of its first session in September.

As Members should be aware, the PAC has primacy on considering NIAO reports. While matters are under consideration by that Committee, I must be careful to not be seen pre-empting or prejudging either the PAC report or the subsequent ministerial response

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

Minister, thank you for your answer. Would you consider excluding BT from any future competition?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I am not sure that it would be legal to set out to exclude someone before the negotiations have been entered into. Bear in mind that the contract was awarded in 1999 and has been reviewed since. Clearly, the Audit Office report has thrown up questions and issues that need to be addressed, and I do not doubt that they will form part of the consideration on renewing the contract. The contract will be up for renewal in 2021, and, obviously, we cannot preclude anyone from being involved, but we will certainly look at the lessons learned from the handling of the previous PFI contract.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his answers. Does he recognise that the LandWeb project was not value for money, considering that the original contract was £46 million and that by April 2019 it was almost £100 million? How did we justify the continuous extensions from 2016, which has brought us to an excess cost of over £107 million?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I said, it was a PFI contract that was awarded in 1999, when PFI was touted as being the answer to quite a few public expenditure issues. Some of those contracts have worked, but quite clearly some of them did not work as intended and arguably did not represent value for money. So, I do not have an issue. There are lessons that need to be learned in relation to all of that. I do not want to pre-empt the Public Accounts Committee's findings after its consideration of the report, but undoubtedly we are taking steps to deal legislatively with the charging issue. That will be done by 2021. It could not be done over the three-year period when the Assembly was down. We will take steps to deal with that and will begin the discussions on the replacement of that contract. I anticipate, and I will ensure, that the lessons that are learned from this report are part of that consideration.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his responses. Will those who have been overcharged be reimbursed?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

[Long Pause.]

This is the trouble with taking three questions at once.

I understand, from reading this, that the charges would not be reimbursed. The report acknowledges that the Department was unable to produce a new fees order to manage surplus fees due to the absence of the Assembly, and the Department is urgently progressing a revised fees order, which is to be in place by 2021. The fees collected by Land Registry over the last three years were lawfully levied under the legislation that was in force at that time. There is no statutory provision under which the Department could return any portion of the fees levied in the past.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

4. Mr Humphrey asked the Minister of Finance what percentage of applicants to the COVID-19 £10,000 small business grant scheme have not yet been notified of the outcome of their application. (AQO 511/17-22)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Between 26 March and 26 June, the Department made 23,658 payments under the small business support grant, worth a total of £236·58 million, to businesses here. I know that many Members recognise that that has been an exceptional effort by staff who are working in very challenging conditions. In total, 24,768 applications were made to the £10,000 small business grant scheme. As of 26 June, 23,532 applicants, or 95% of all applications received, had been notified of the outcome. A total of 432 applications are still being processed by Land and Property Services. In almost all of those cases, the Department is waiting for information or clarification from the applicant.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his answer, and I thank Her Majesty's Government and the Northern Ireland Executive for the easements to Northern Ireland businesses. Small business is the backbone of the Northern Ireland economy and the support that it has been receiving is hugely important. I welcome those figures, which show the importance of the Union to Northern Ireland.

Some small businesses have not yet received information on their application. How quickly can we get that to them so that they can survive and so that we can preserve jobs as we go forward?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

This may be part of my statement to the Assembly later, but the Member may be aware that a total of £63 million across the three business support schemes — the £10,000 grant, the £25,000 grant and the business hardship fund — has been surrendered back unspent. £65 million has been unspent, £53 million has been returned and some money has been held for legal purposes by the Department for the Economy. The Executive had a preliminary discussion yesterday about how we will use that £53 million, and there is a strong desire across the Executive to address some of the sectors that managed to fall through the cracks, like social economy, childcare, sole traders, which is a very difficult category to deal with, and some other sectors that have not managed to avail themselves of any of the support packages to date. We will continue that discussion in my Department, and we will work on assessing the costs if we were to address some of those sectors and on what use can be made of the £53 million that the Department for the Economy has surrendered.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

5. Mr Storey asked the Minister of Finance for his assessment of the benefits of Constructionline to the procurement process in Northern Ireland. (AQO 512/17-22)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The use of Constructionline reduces tendering costs by removing the need for suppliers to submit their annual accounts each time they apply to tender for a construction contract. That is particularly beneficial for smaller firms as it means that valuable resources can instead focus on delivering projects. Given the impact of the pandemic, it is more important than ever that construction projects are brought to the market as quickly as possible, and Constructionline also saves buyers time by providing a standard assessment of each supplier's financial standing.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for reading what the Department gave to him. Undoubtedly, the issue always is, when we come to the House, how the Department views itself on many of these things.

Sadly, many in the construction business will not share this positive response about the practical help given by Constructionline and the procurement process. The Minister knows that this is an issue. I have written to him a number of times on —.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Can the Member come to his question?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

The Minister specifically referred to post-COVID. Will he give an assurance that serious consideration will be given to the help that companies need to allow them to be proactively involved in procurement through Constructionline in a way that is beneficial to them and to start the economy again in Northern Ireland?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As the Member probably knows, Constructionline is a private-sector company that provides a service that is useful in the procurement process. The process gives the financial assessment of companies, offers various levels of registration and makes offers which are proportionate to suppliers' turnover. I imagine that those who are using it will find it of some benefit.

I recognise what the Member has said about procurement. It is a key discussion for us coming out of COVID. The Departments — all Departments — have had the ability, when pressed, to turn things around quickly. Things that would ordinarily have taken months of consultations and, maybe, pilot schemes and all of that. For example, as I said in response to the last question, business support grants have been 95% effective thus far, which is remarkable.

The lessons we have learned from the pandemic can be applied to how Departments can be proactive, engage with sectors, ensure they talk to sectors and how they can best help return the economy to as full a throttle, if you like, as is possible. Clearly, construction is a key part of that as is the public sector procurement of construction. We have been working with CPD to engage with the construction industry on the safety of returning. We have also instructed Departments to bring forward projects and to make sure that issues which may hold up projects are brought forward so that projects are at a point of readiness. When construction can get back to full operation, as it is currently doing, we will be ready to go with projects. We want to streamline this process as much as we can and ensure the engagement with the construction sector works as best it can. Of course, we have to protect the public purse as that is part of our responsibility, but the experience of the pandemic shows that we can do both. We can do things better and at pace and still make sure that there is proper accountability for public finances.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

6. Mr Allen asked the Minister of Finance to outline the additional funding Northern Ireland has received from Barnett consequentials in the past 12 months. (AQO 513/17-22)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Over the last 12 months, and covering the two financial years 2019-2020 and 2020-21, the Executive has received Barnett consequentials of £847·6 million resource DEL, £152·3 million capital DEL and a reduction in the financial transactions capital of £57 million. This includes farm support payments of £278·6 million which replaces the EU common agriculture policy payments. In addition, the Executive has received Barnett consequentials of £1,442·2 million to address the impacts of COVID-19.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his answer, and for outlining the important additional funding received from the UK Government. The Minister will no doubt be aware of the additional £30 million announced in March — which seems like a long time ago — by the Chancellor for the Changing Places Fund for toilets.

I believe there is no Barnett consequential due for that fund. Can the Minister outline what engagement he has had with Executive colleagues, particularly the Minister for Communities, about setting up a similar fund for Northern Ireland?