Northern Ireland Assembly, 29 September 2020

261 contributions from 59 members. The official report.

Ministerial Statement

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Members, I have received noticed from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister that they wish to make a statement. I welcome the fact that we have the First Minister here this morning to address the Assembly. It follows on from yesterday when we had two Ministers in to brief the Assembly. These are very important contributions to the Assembly, and I want to extend our appreciation to the members of the Executive for doing so.

Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that, in the light of the social distancing being observed by parties, the Speaker's ruling that Members must be in the Chamber to hear a statement if they wish to ask a question about it, has been relaxed. Members still have to make sure that their name is on the speaking list if they wish to be called. However, they can do that by rising in their place as well as by notifying the Business Office or the Speaker's Table directly. I remind Members to be concise in asking a question. It is not an opportunity for debate per se, and long introductions should be avoided.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In compliance with section 52C(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make the following statement on recent steps taken by the Executive to try to prevent the spread of the coronavirus epidemic. These decisions have been taken against the following backdrop. Since the beginning of July, there has been a gradual, but sustained, rise in the number of positive COVID-19 tests. On Saturday, the Department of Health confirmed that a further 319 people in Northern Ireland had tested positive for coronavirus. Since then, a further 407 people have tested positive. Saturday was the highest daily tally reported since the pandemic began and brings the total number of confirmed cases reported to 10,949. In the past seven days alone, 1,513 cases have been diagnosed . Unfortunately, one death has been reported, bringing the death toll to 578. There are 51 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across Northern Ireland, with six in intensive care, and there are outbreaks of the virus in 28 care homes.

Evidence from the test, trace, protect programme tells us that a significant number of the COVID-19 cases are being acquired through household contacts and informal interactions in the community. Wherever people meet each other, there is a risk of transmission. That is why the Executive agreed that restrictions in domestic settings should be introduced to reduce community transmission occurring through indoor social gatherings in households. Initially, this was applied on a postcode basis but now applies to all areas of Northern Ireland. These restrictions are a necessary and proportionate approach to address the increasing number of COVID cases that we have witnessed since early July, and which have accelerated over the past weeks.

Positive case numbers are of serious concern to the Executive, the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) and the Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA). The numbers themselves, and the rate at which cases are doubling, should be a concern to all parts of our society, including the business sector and citizens. If allowed to continue, this will inevitably lead to an increase in hospital admissions and deaths, and that is something that we must try to minimise.

Building on the measures already in place, the Executive agreed last Thursday that a closing time of 11.00 pm should be applied to the hospitality sector. That will come into effect from midnight on Wednesday 30 September 2020 and apply to those parts of the hospitality sector that are subject to current regulations, including pubs, bars, restaurants and cafes as well as hotel and guesthouse bars. No alcohol or food will be served after 10.30 pm, and all customers must leave by 11.00 pm. In practice, that brings the normal closing times forward by half an hour, and there will be no late licences.

The intention behind the earlier closing time is that socialising later in the evening is considered to increase the risk of virus spreading because people adhere to the rules less strictly after consuming alcohol and in venues where they are used to mixing freely. There can be no exceptions to this, so weddings and other important social events will also be required to comply. From Thursday 24 September, all business that serve food or drink in England, Scotland and Wales have been required to shut at 10.00 pm under new measures that were introduced to control the rising rate of coronavirus, and that includes pubs, restaurants, cafes, social clubs, casinos and bingo halls.

The 10.00 pm closing time that had initially been imposed in certain areas of England became a nationwide restriction, and that is because of the need to ask people to further limit their social interactions. Sales of alcohol from off-licences and supermarkets in Northern Ireland already stop at 11.00 pm. That will help to ensure a consistent approach in border areas.

Some will make the point that pubs and bars closing at 11.00 pm will drive people to house parties, and we recognise that risk. However, house parties and gatherings in our homes are illegal. The restrictions already in place ban people from more than one household to be in a private dwelling or more than six people from no more than two households to be in a private garden.

The totality of the arrangements will be subject to enforcement. We do not want to go there. We would prefer that everyone works with us to have an impact on the spread of the virus. However, enforcement has a role, and we are working closely with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and local government to understand the issues from their perspective and the importance of community responses. Junior Ministers are working closely with the police and local government, and we will be looking at the fine levels that we have here as a matter of priority.

It is essential that business owners and members of the public adhere to these restrictions, which will help to reduce the length of time that the restrictions will need to be retained. We want to avoid more stringent measures, but we have been clear from the outset of the pandemic that we will put restrictions in place if we have to. We will do so carefully and with great thought to the social and economic impacts, but if we need to act, we will.

As always, we must continue to be extremely careful in all aspects of our lives, particularly for the medically vulnerable members of our community. We appreciate that this is a difficult time for everyone, and yet more restrictions are not what any of us wants. It is very important to say that, Mr Speaker. We cannot emphasise enough that the regulations are intended to protect you, to protect other people, to reduce the spread of infection and to bring the epidemic to an end as soon as possible. We assure the House that the restrictions will be kept under constant review and measures will be removed if possible, but, equally, they may be added to if necessary. We can all help to curb the spread of the virus by maintaining social distancing; maintaining good hand and respiratory hygiene; wearing face coverings; self-isolating immediately if we experience any symptoms, including a new persistent cough, a fever or a loss or change of smell or taste; seeking a test if we experience any of those symptoms; downloading the StopCOVID NI app; and complying with the restrictions in place. Our message is simple: if each and every one of us does our bit, we will help to bring the epidemic to an end sooner rather than later, and, by doing that, save lives.

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

I welcome today's statement from the Executive Office and the First Minister and the confirmation that it provides. Furthermore, I welcome the ability for us to be representatives here and ask questions and seek clarity on the decisions that have been taken. It is fairly obvious that we are facing a crisis in the pandemic; around 15% or 20% of the cases have been recorded in the past week alone. The First Minister detailed the new rules and regulations, which are welcome, in terms of assistance to try to curb that. Will she outline any discussions or considerations that there have been to giving help to businesses in the hospitality industry that are close to the edge as it is and may be pushed over it by the restrictions? I wonder where our Economy Minister is. She needs to deliver us not a reaction to what has happened but a concrete plan to help businesses and support those who will lose their livelihood and everything that goes with it because of the restrictions.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Committee Chair for his question. The Executive have been engaging quite closely with the hospitality sector, as he would expect us to do. We have taken a partnership approach with that sector throughout the pandemic, given the fact that it was told to close very early in the pandemic and has been one of the last sectors to reopen. We recognise all the pressures and strains that that puts on those businesses. It was because of our consciousness of the pressures that the hospitality sector is under, and also observing the 10.00 pm curfew in other parts of the United Kingdom and the way in which that has worked, that we decided to have an 11.00 pm curfew. We hope that that will allow businesses, particularly restaurants and hotels, to have a second sitting; one of the concerns that was raised with us around the 10.00 pm curfew was that it would not allow for two sittings in a restaurant. We hope that that now can happen. We have been listening very carefully to the hospitality sector.

The recovery piece is something that the Executive, as a whole, have been working on. We have agreed a tentative recovery framework and have been working with the Department of Finance. The Chair will know that, just last week, the Minister of Finance came forward with more allocations in respect of trying to fight COVID. There is still some money left in that budget to deal with some of the known unknowns that are yet to come before us. We know that things are going to get difficult for a lot of businesses, so we need to be prepared to try to work with those sectors when those difficulties come about.

I regret that we have had to make this announcement today. I think that we all do. However, we are trying to take an appropriate, proportionate reaction to what you pointed out: the rising number of cases right across Northern Ireland. When you put it in that very stark way — over 1,500 cases have been diagnosed in the past week — that is quite a significant rise, so it is important that we act in a proportionate way, listen to the voice of businesses and also put lives to the forefront of our mind. As well as saving lives, we should think about livelihoods. I take very much what the Chair has said. We will continue to work with him and his colleagues in the Committee as we step through what will be a very difficult time.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for coming to the House today with the statement. We have heard much about people complying and some not complying, but what is very much in people's minds is this: who will enforce the regulations?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Of course, right from the beginning of the pandemic, we have said to the people of Northern Ireland that we want to work in partnership with them. We want to work in partnership with the various sectors, such as the hospitality sector; citizens generally; and sports, for example. We are working very hard with those organisations. We have listened today to the threats to some of the Irish league teams because of the fact that they have no income coming in.

I noticed yesterday that the GAA was making a similar point about its funding.

We have been working very much in partnership with people, but, as I said in my statement, enforcement has a role to play. The junior Ministers are leading the enforcement group from the Executive. They are working with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and local government to make sure that we have, first, the appropriate powers in place. Do we need to revisit the level of fines that we have in place? I would much prefer people to work with us, comply with the restrictions and listen to the guidance, because it is for their own good. It is for individuals' own good. It is therefore important to take some responsibility for our actions.

You are right: enforcement plays a role in all of this, and we will have to deal with people who persistently offend through the appropriate authority, be that local government, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) or the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire as ucht an ráitis. I thank the First Minister for the statement this morning. Does she believe that the British Government's job support scheme is adequate to support workers who have to leave work to self-isolate?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

There are two things there. First, for those who have to self-isolate, the Government have announced a package of £500 so that they can remain at home. To make sure that people in Northern Ireland can avail themselves of that, we still have to get more clarity on whether it is a Barnett consequential or is demand-led.

The Member asked about the job support scheme. Obviously, we knew that the furlough scheme was coming to an end. The Executive as a whole were concerned that that would lead to a cliff edge for those who were on the furlough scheme. The job support scheme is not as generous as the furlough scheme — I think that everyone has accepted that — but it at least allows us to move forward without there being a complete cliff edge. I am concerned for the industries affected. I met representatives from the events industry and outgoing travel industry representatives recently. Such companies basically have no work at this moment in time, so, under the job support scheme, they do not really have viable jobs for people to go to. I am therefore concerned about some of those industries, and we will need to see what we can do to help them. The job support scheme is not as good as the furlough scheme, but it is certainly better than having nothing at all with which to support industries in Northern Ireland.

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for her statement. As you rightly said, the United Kingdom has a 10 o'clock curfew and the Republic of Ireland has 11.30 pm, while we have arrived at 10.30 pm and out for 11.00 pm. Can you give some clarity about how that time has come about? You can understand that the public and the sector will look at it thinking that times are almost being plucked out of the air. Why is there that variety across these islands, and why did the Executive decide on 10.30 pm for 11.00 pm?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It certainly was not plucked from the air. We looked at the experience in England, Wales and Scotland. I am sure that you will have noticed some of the television coverage over the weekend about people leaving bars at 10 o'clock, the crowds in the streets and what have you. We wanted to make sure that we aligned with off-licences and supermarkets, which stop selling alcohol at 11 o'clock. The allegation was made that people will leave the pub and go to a house party. They cannot go to a supermarket or off-licence to buy alcohol after, because the sale of alcohol stops at 11 o'clock. We felt that that was a good reason to close at 11 o'clock. We were conscious of the fact that the Republic of Ireland's curfew is at 11.30 pm, but we made an assessment that people would not travel across the border for such a short time.

That is why we chose the 11 o'clock curfew. There was a reasoned discussion amongst colleagues. The decision has the support of the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser. We took a holistic approach and considered behaviour patterns: what will happen when people leave public houses, hotels, restaurants and what have you? That is why we arrived at the decision of 11 o'clock.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the First Minister for coming to the House. It is a useful opportunity to get an update on the situation and to seek clarity. On 17 September, the Executive Office issued a statement in which it stated that beer bikes would not be permitted to operate, but, thus far, there has been no legislation or action to make that a reality. Will the First Minister outline what actions are being taken to make that a reality?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Beer bikes are a particular problem. We are considering how to deal with that problem, and officials will engage with the operators of those bikes. The Member is right to point out that beer bikes still need to be dealt with, and I hope that we can deal with them sooner rather than later. They are an anomaly that needs to be dealt with.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Why did the Executive not match the 10.00 pm closure time in England? How are Ministers trying to get the message through to young people and students?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have responded to why we decided on 11.00 pm: it was because we considered all the different issues, such as ensuring that hospitality could have a second sitting if people were having food and making sure that we closed at the same time as off-licences and supermarkets for the sale of alcohol. We also took it into account that there was a small differential between us and the Republic of Ireland, which means that people should not travel across the border because of that differential, and, of course, we considered the experience of the 10.00 pm curfew on the mainland.

The Member is right to point out the need for us to have good messaging for young people. I addressed that yesterday at Question Time, and I believe that we need to reach them effectively. The Executive information service is engaging on new digital messaging and using radio stations such as Cool FM that the younger generation listens to — although I am partial to a bit of Cool FM myself, Mr Speaker. It is important that we use the appropriate platforms to reach our younger people, and we are certainly looking at that.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Minister, as we all know, Ireland is a single epidemiological unit, particularly for animal health, but I want to talk about human health. The Public Health Agency (PHA) has said that there is a cross-border protocol in place for tracking. As you know, the rate in Derry, Strabane and Donegal is alarming, yet doctors have said that they do not know about the protocol and are not using it. Are the Executive planning to increase tracking and tracing, particularly for cross-border workers who cross the border every day?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I heard the GP from, I think, Lifford make that very point about the tracking and tracing. I was a little surprised at that, because I had understood that our StopCOVID NI app was interoperable with the app in the Republic of Ireland. We will certainly look at that. I know that the Chief Medical Officer here and his counterpart in Dublin have been working closely on those issues. The deputy First Minister and I took calls from the Taoiseach last Thursday during which he alerted us to the issue in Donegal, and, after those calls, we immediately spoke to the Chief Medical Officer to make sure that there was that ongoing contact. We, of course, realise that a lot of people work in either jurisdiction. It is important that they can continue that work, but, at the same time, we must be able to track where the virus is and try to break transmission. That is the most important thing.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for her statement to the House. It is concerning that we have had over 1,500 new cases in the past week, so I welcome the clarification on closing times for establishments that serve alcohol and the inclusion of weddings. Minister, would it not be more appropriate for the Minister of Justice to take part in the enforcement group that has been set up?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Obviously, it would be inappropriate for me to answer on behalf of the Justice Minister, but I think that she took the view that the enforcement issues were wider than her ministerial portfolio, so she did not feel that it was appropriate to chair the group.

It is important that we have the group in place; we cannot allow things to be held back. The junior Ministers chair the enforcement group. It is highly important that that work continues. As the Member knows, I said yesterday that the Executive Office is meeting the universities today, and the enforcement group will continue to meet local government, our colleagues in the Police Service of Northern Ireland and all the other agencies that have a role in enforcement. Part of it is enforcement, but, again, I stress that it is important that everybody has responsibility for their own actions. Compliance is important as we run through what will be a difficult time for us all over the next couple of weeks and months.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for her statement. The issue of closing time for the hospitality industry is a clear example of the need for us to work on an all-Ireland basis in our response to COVID-19, particularly for people living in border areas. What engagement have the Executive had on that basis?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We were conscious of the 11.30 pm curfew in the Republic of Ireland and of what was happening on the UK mainland, but we have always said that we will take the decisions that are appropriate to Northern Ireland. That is what we have done in this regard. We have recognised that it might be a slightly later time in the Republic of Ireland, but, frankly, the time for travel is so short that we do not think that there is an incentive to go across the border to continue to seek alcohol. We have taken into consideration the different jurisdictions and the different experiences, while listening to our hospitality industry. I know that some in the hospitality industry will be disappointed by the announcement — we have heard from some this morning — but we are doing this to keep them open generally and to allow people to continue, albeit in a more limited way; I accept that. However, we hope that, if we take action now, we can stop the spread and the transmission and then, hopefully, deal with the issues in a progressive way so that we can return to normality more quickly. If we do not intervene now, things will get worse and we will have to take more punitive measures, and none of us wants to do that. We want to stop the transmission of the virus. That is the focus.

Pat Catney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Lagan Valley)

I thank the First Minister for briefing the House. Responsible publicans are prepared to follow the regulations to the letter in order to keep people safe. The industry is one of our most highly regulated, and those involved know how best they can look after people in their premises. We have missed a trick. Given that last orders will be at 10.30 pm and off-sales will be open until 11.00 pm, does the First Minister have any concerns that people leaving the bars at 10.30 pm will be able to go to an off-sales, tank up with alcohol and head off to house parties? That is a major concern. It is a flaw in the regulations. The off-sales should have been closed before the bars, at 10.30 pm.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I recognise the Member's expertise in the area, but we believe that, if last orders are at 10.30 pm, you have drinking-up time until 11.00 pm. The off-licences close at 11.00 pm. If people decide to leave the bars at 10.00 pm and go to the off-licences, there is little that we can do about that. We are trying to have uniformity across the piece, and we think that having off-licences, supermarkets and all of the hospitality industry close at the same time gives uniformity and provides clarity. We have heard from people that, when there are different times, they are confused. We took time over this, and we took criticism for not announcing it last Thursday, but we were determined to get the regulations right and to make sure that we had clarity. That is why I wanted to come to the House today. I wanted to explain the thinking behind the regulations and to say that I believe that this is the best way forward. It is a reasoned way forward, and that is what we have put before the House.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

Minister, it is not easy. They are difficult decisions, and I commend all those who are making the difficult decisions and showing that moral courage. I urge people to lean into those decisions.

I agree that enforcement is not always the answer, but it is an important tool. I am disheartened to see that only one Minister, the Minister of Health, actually attends that working group. Obviously, it is chaired by the junior Ministers. I want to follow up on a question from Pam Cameron. Was the Minister of Justice invited, by the Ministers or in writing, to chair the strategic working group on enforcement?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As I have said, I cannot answer for the Minister of Justice, and I am sure that you will raise this with the Minister directly. My understanding is that she did not want to chair the meeting because she felt that the remit of the enforcement group was wider than her departmental responsibilities. I think that that is patently the case. However, I say to all Ministers in the Executive that that enforcement group is open to anyone who wishes to come along. I pay tribute to the junior Ministers for the work that they have been doing, along with the Health Minister, on that committee. It is not an easy subject. We certainly do not want to be in a position to have to enforce any of this. We would much prefer it if people complied and worked with us, but, unfortunately, we have to have enforcement. Originally we were looking at some of the issues around the Holylands, but now that group is wider. As I say, any Minister can attend that meeting. We will ensure that the note is sent out from our office to any Minister who wants to attend, so that they can attend if desired.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

First Minister, there is a narrative and a following out there that this crisis does not exist, that it is a bad flu, and that it is all a Government hoax. What would you say to those individuals or those groups of people?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

If they do not want to believe me, they can look at the data. As the Chair of the Committee rightly pointed out, the data is very clear. We have 1,513 new cases in the last seven days. At the height of the pandemic, we did not have that number of cases. It is not a hoax; it is a reality. If you speak to anyone who has been unfortunate enough to contract COVID-19, they will tell you very clearly that it is not a hoax. It is something that does not just impact on them during the time when they are feeling unwell; it stays with them for a considerable length of time as well. It has an impact on all your organs and is a very painful experience to go through — a very scary experience as well — sometimes, sadly, leading to death. So I say to people, if you do not individually feel that you are at risk, think of your family, think of your friends and think of those around you who are vulnerable. Please do not be selfish. Please do the right thing and abide by the guidance and the regulations that are there.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

In relation to the point that Keith Buchanan has just raised, I note that today, as a civilisation, we have crossed the horrendous threshold of 1 million deaths around the world from COVID-19, so it is clearly not false.

I acknowledge that, by and large, the majority of people are abiding by the restrictions, which are onerous in themselves at times, and we should recognise that. However, it is clear that the test-and-trace system, which is a key component of fighting this virus, has been under pressure in recent times and may well come under additional pressure as we move into the winter months. Are there any plans to develop and build bespoke additional capacity in the system here to deal with the pressures that we are now facing?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his question, and he is right. I looked at some of the headlines in the newspapers this morning. It is a sobering thought that 1 million people have lost their lives to this pandemic across the world.

We have been very pleased with the way in which the test-and-trace system has been working, particularly in our care homes. We have been able to identify the fact that there has been COVID-19 in some of our care homes solely through our testing regime. I think that 24 out of the 28 care homes that were confirmed to have COVID in them were identified by the testing programme. That is progress. Obviously, we wish that it was not in any care homes. If the Health Minister comes to the Executive and says that he needs further resources for his testing programme, I think that he will have a very empathetic ear from the Executive. We will want to ensure that he has the resources available to him. If he does that, we will certainly listen to what he has to say.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for coming to the House and making a statement. I welcome it. I invite the First Minister to also tell us what holistic approach the Executive are taking to deal with the totality of the pandemic in Northern Ireland. After all, the economy has been trashed. Public expenditure is out of control. Businesses are being destroyed. Thousands of patients have been denied life-saving treatment. Disabled people are unsupported. Children's futures have been mortgaged and damaged to the hilt. People's mental health and welfare is at risk. Dealing with one sector is important, but what is your holistic approach?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for that very good question. In our recovery framework, we have been considering how we listen to, sometimes, contrary narratives. We have been looking at economic well-being and societal well-being, including mental health and how we can ensure that we take action around that. That is one of the reasons why it was important to have Professor Siobhan O'Neill put into office as the mental health champion. We have been looking at non-COVID health. The Member will know that Minister of Health has brought forward his cancer plan. There are many other conditions for which he needs to bring forward plans. I am sure that we are all getting correspondence in relation to that.

Importantly, we are looking at things from a family point of view. I know that there has been a lot of discussion about the family unit. Of course, in Northern Ireland, family is very important. The voice of the family needs to be there as well. There is no doubt that that will become a louder voice as we move towards some of the very significant times when family would be together, such as Christmas. Therefore, we have a big job of work to do in relation to how we bring together all those different strands, because it is highly important that, whilst, of course, we have to deal with the COVID piece, there are so many other pieces that we must deal with as well.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the First Minister for her statement. This week, we have seen a number of cases amongst the student population. Students' representatives have been saying that there is a lack of clarity about messaging and guidance that is specific to them. Does the First Minister think that enough is being done to support students, including those who are self-isolating? Do the regulations permit students to travel home at weekends and at the end of term?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I will start with the latter end of that question. Yes: at present, students can go home at the weekends and at the end of term. That is something that we will look at continually. It goes back to the issue of families being able to come together. We know that, uniquely, young people go home at the weekends for various reasons, perhaps for a job or just to see their family. We ask them to exercise caution. Of course, if they have any symptoms, they should self-isolate and seek a test.

We are working with the universities. Officials are having a meeting with the universities today. That is important. I have to say that some of the scenes from other universities on the mainland have been quite distressing. This morning, I was reading about someone who is vegan being offered Mars bars in support, so a lot of support needs to be put into that. Obviously, we are in touch with Queen's University about those who have been diagnosed as COVID-positive and those who are self-isolating in order to ensure that the appropriate support is in place. Therefore, it is an ongoing issue. It is a developing issue, unfortunately. We will continue to work with the universities on it.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the First Minister for her statement. The economy is not in recovery. It is hanging on. It is on life support at present. While the announcement is necessary, it is not welcome for obvious reasons. What further restrictions are being considered by the Executive if that intervention does not work?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for her question. Indeed, we are considering a menu of interventions and it is important that we do. The positive thing to say to the Member is that, as we understand it from our Chief Scientific Adviser, the household restrictions that we put in place in Ballymena had the impact of reversing the trend in that area. In Belfast, the household restrictions slowed the transmission of the virus.

It is important that we continue to monitor the restrictions that we put in place to see what impact that they are having before we bring forward other restrictions. We are very conscious of the fact that the Act under which this is all happening, and on which we have received quite a lot of correspondence recently, says that we need to be proportionate and that it needs to be necessary. That is something that we always keep to the forefront of our mind. We do not want to bring forward restrictions on hospitality; we are only doing so because we believe that it is necessary, but we do believe that it is proportionate.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

First Minister, I welcome your clear message to the public this morning, especially to the small minority of people who seem to think that this is some sort of a hoax to rob them of their civil liberties. Earlier, my colleague Doug Beattie asked whether the Executive had invited the Justice Minister to chair the new enforcement body. You referred him to ask that question directly to the Justice Minister. Can I respectfully ask, First Minister, whether, at any point, you asked the Justice Minister to chair this body?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his question. I do not want to get into the details of Executive meetings. It would be invidious and wrong to do that. I think that it is a common cause. The Justice Minister has made comments relating to the enforcement group. It is my understanding that the reason why she felt that she did not want to chair that group was because the remit was wider than the Justice portfolio.

It is incredibly important that all five Executive parties work together at this critical time. Whilst we all may have different views on different things, it is important that we listen to the data. Today, I have tried to outline the data to the House as to why we are taking these decisions. I have tried to explain the rationale behind the 11.00 pm curfew as opposed to another time. I hope that Members appreciate that this is not something that we arrive at very quickly. We take considerable time to deal with these issues and we will continue to work together. That is a critical point in an effort to do what is right for all the citizens of Northern Ireland.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

Thank you.

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

I thank the First Minister for the statement. As a former member of the Policing Board, you will be aware that policing and enforcement is a huge problem. You are essentially applying policing enforcement to a health crisis. Enforcement is also the responsibility of other agencies. What discussions have you had with the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (Solace), for example? To pick up on Mr Chambers' point, it is my understanding that the junior Ministers have a very clear remit to ensure that there is dialogue and early engagement with the police and others on how restrictions might well be enforced.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for her question. The junior Ministers do take on that role, not just engaging with the police but with Solace. They have very much been part of those conversations and with other agencies that may have a role in enforcement.

I could not be clearer: we do not want to have to enforce the rules. We would much prefer that people complied with them and worked with us. There needs to be, dare I say it, that backstop to deal with these issues, and the police have been very good in working with the Executive Office. If there is an issue, they come and talk to us and we try to sort the issue out. As Mr Beattie said earlier, none of this is perfect. We are trying deal with an emerging situation. When you look at the numbers of people who are testing positive for COVID, it is an appropriate and necessary step that we are taking.

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

I thank the First Minister for her responses up until now. On the specific question of enforcement, it came to my attention, particularly over the weekend, that the police were saying that there is a grey area, certainly on whether they are to be the lead agency on enforcement, and senior officials in local government are saying precisely the same thing to me. They say that they are waiting for clarification from the Executive on that. Perhaps the First Minister could give us some insight on where we are and when the situation is likely to be clarified. There is a wider issue around the messaging and the clarity of message emanating from the COVID regulations.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his question. I hope that my coming here today and setting out the rationale behind the decision to close hospitality premises at 11.00 pm explains what we are trying to do in that respect. I hope also that the fact that the whole hospitality industry will be closed by 11.00 pm gives clarity to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and makes enforcement easier for it. There are no exceptions, no late licences, and therefore the police will know that no hospitality premises should be open after 11.00 pm.

When we had the differentiation between wet bars and those selling food, it was difficult to enforce. I accept that. I know that there were some very good businesses that were faithful in keeping their doors closed, as wet bars only, but there were some that were not. They were gaming the regulations, and we were aware of that. I think that it is important that the whole sector is now open, although we have put the whole sector under a curfew of 11.00 pm. I hope that that will give some clarity.

It will not be welcomed by the industry. I recognise that. However, we are doing it to try to ensure that we stop the spread of coronavirus and break the transmission levels as well.

Rachel Woods (Green, North Down)

I thank the First Minister and the junior Minister for coming to the House today. First, will the First Minister confirm an important detail in relation to an earlier question, that last orders will have to be before 10.30 pm, given that she stated that customers must be off the premises by 11.00 pm, to facilitate drinking-up time?

Secondly, has there been any assessment by the Executive or by her ministerial colleague in Economy of what potential reduced staff hours might mean in terms of redundancies?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Hotels and bars will stop serving alcohol at 10.30 pm. So, last orders will be at 10.30 pm, just to be clear, and people will be off the premises by 11.00 pm. That is what the restrictions will say.

As for the assessment of redundancies and what have you, I think that we were very clear about the importance of allowing for a second sitting in restaurants and pubs that sell food. That was an effort to try to make sure that they are viable. Without that, it would have been challenging for some restaurants. As I said, this will not be welcome, but it will be better than closing at 10.00 pm and having some of the associated difficulties with that.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I note that there are two versions of the statement. Perhaps the First Minister will explain that. Has what has been announced this morning yet been reduced to regulations? Are the regulations to deal with this now published, and do those regulations extend to conduct within the public houses, namely social distancing between different households? If they do, who is going to enforce that? Is that burden going to be on the publican or on someone else? If people are going to retire from the pub to a local house, how is enforcement to be undertaken?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his question. I apologise if a draft statement was put out. The statement that I delivered is the statement, just to be clear.

In terms of enforcement, the regulations will be laid tomorrow, and they will come into force tomorrow evening at midnight. So, tomorrow is the last day, if you like, of the old regime, and the regulations will come into force on Thursday.

As for individuals in public houses, the responsibility lies with the individuals. I am not making any apologies for the fact that it will be difficult to enforce that. I accept that, but we are saying to people, "If you want to work with us and break the transmission of the virus, the best way to do that is to limit your social contact with other individuals from different households inside." That is why we are having that limit.

People can meet others outside in the open air, where it is well-ventilated and they are socially distancing. There is no science to this, Mr Allister. I know that you will want to interrogate the regulations and that is absolutely the right thing for the House to do. However, I ask the Member to bear with us in the enforcement of these regulations because we are trying to do something that we have never done, which is to stop the transmission of the virus, and we are asking people to work with us in that respect.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Sick pay is paltry for many hospitality workers, and it is likely that many will be financially forced to make decisions that may not be best for their health and the health of the community. What extra provision does the First Minister or the Executive have to develop a COVID sick-pay scheme for low-paid hospitality workers?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I hear the Member's question, and I am sure that the Economy Minister will be looking carefully at the industry to see if interventions are needed to help. I accept what the Member says about such workers being in low-paid jobs and, sometimes, on zero-hours contracts. There is a need to be aware of all that, and I am sure that the Economy Minister, or, indeed, the Communities Minister, will bring forward any support proposals if that is deemed necessary.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

That concludes questions on the statement. I thank the Minister and those Members who contributed on this important issue.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

On a point of order. Last Monday, I had a question for urgent oral answer for the Justice Minister about the Holylands. My subsequent question was about the COVID enforcement group.

The Minister's answer was:

"With respect to the Member, the composition of the working group was not a matter for the Department of Justice; it was a matter for the Department of Health and the Executive Office, so I suggest that perhaps that is something that he should take up with them." — [Official Report (Hansard), 21 September 2020, p71, col 1].

I now believe that the Minister was asked to chair that working group. Therefore, the candour and openness of the Minister in answering my question were not in keeping with the seven principles of public life, as in openness.

Could I ask the Speaker to please rule on whether the Minister should be invited back to the Assembly and reflect on that answer?

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Given that you gave me no notice of that point of order, I will consider and reflect on that and come back to you.

I ask Members to take their ease while we prepare for the next item of business.

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

Executive Committee Business

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I beg to move:

That the Northern Ireland Screen Commission (Funding) Order (Northern Ireland) 2020 be affirmed.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on this debate. I call the Minister to open the debate on the motion.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity. The Northern Ireland Screen Commission (Funding) Order (Northern Ireland) 2020 will provide my Department with the vires to provide Northern Ireland Screen with grant-in-aid payments to allow it to continue to promote commercial activity and employment.

Northern Ireland Screen is the lead agency for the development of the screen industries in Northern Ireland. It has also had considerable success in attracting major screen projects to Northern Ireland, for example, the world-acclaimed HBO 'Game of Thrones' series, which is estimated to have brought in excess of £250 million into the local economy, employed over 1,000 local people in each of the eight series and has elevated the profile of the Northern Ireland screen industry internationally.

Production in Northern Ireland has now resumed for large-scale projects, and a new film, 'The Northman' is currently being filmed at Torr Head on the Antrim coast. High-profile projects like that will continue to support the growth of our international stature as a production location, along with the growth of our indigenous sector, as Northern Ireland Screen support ensures that local personnel are involved in international productions.

In economic terms, during the period of Northern Ireland Screen's previous strategy, it is estimated that for every £1 spent on developing the screen sector in Northern Ireland, there was £2·70 returned to the Northern Ireland economy.

The legislation brought forward to the Assembly today is required following the transfer of Northern Ireland Screen to my Department from the then Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure in May 2016 as part of the restructuring of Departments. Prior to that transfer, Northern Ireland Screen received the majority of its programme funding from Invest NI via a letter of offer. When Northern Ireland Screen became an arm's-length body of my Department, it was agreed that funding would continue to operate as previously until the existing Invest NI four-year letter of offer expired in March 2018.

Since 1 April 2018, the Department has funded Northern Ireland Screen directly rather than through Invest NI. The Department has received approval from the Department of Finance to rely upon the authority of the Budget Act on the clear understanding that appropriate legislation would be taken forward to remedy the situation once the Executive returned. There is therefore now a requirement to regularise the legislative basis on which my Department funds Northern Ireland Screen. The statutory rule being brought forward will not impact on the policy or strategic direction of Northern Ireland Screen or the amount of funding that it receives; rather it is simply a regularisation of the legislative basis on which the Department funds Northern Ireland Screen. Therefore, I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I rise to speak briefly as Chair of the Economy Committee to support the motion on behalf of the Committee. As the Minister has indicated, the NI Screen Commission (Funding) Order (NI) 2020 will provide the Department with powers to fund NI Screen Commission, that is, NI Screen, and will regularise how the Department for the Economy makes grant-in-aid payments to NI Screen to allow it to increase commercial activity or employment in relation to the screen industries here.

The Committee considered the SL1 for the NI Screen Commission (Funding) Order (NI) 2020 in April, and members were content with the policy direction. The Committee agreed the statutory rule at its meeting on 9 September 2020 subject to the report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules. The rule came into operation in May 2020. The Examiner of Statutory Rules has no issue with the rule, and I support the motion to affirm on the Committee's behalf.

I will now speak very briefly as Sinn Féin's economy spokesperson. We recognise the role and success and commend the success of the screen industries and our creative industries. Like others, they have experienced difficulties due to COVID-19. The Minister has outlined the important contribution of both the screen industries and the wider creative sectors to our local economy and the skills base in respect of that locally. We want to see that continue to grow and, therefore, support the order to continue the grant-in-aid payment to develop commercial activity and job creation in the sector.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for her statement. I welcome the motion, which provides the Department with the powers to fund Northern Ireland Screen. As the Chair stated, at the Economy Committee, we agreed the statutory rule earlier this month. The DUP supports today's motion. While it may be purely an administrative change, it is important, as it gives the Economy Department a sound statutory footing to fund NI Screen.

Northern Ireland Screen is an important agency working to maximise the economic, cultural and educational value of the screen industries to the benefit of Northern Ireland. Its activities make a considerable contribution to growing a sustainable economy, creating opportunities to tackle disadvantage and building a strong and shared future. The Minister highlighted some of the major screen projects secured by NI Screen, including the 'Game of Thrones' series, which has brought millions of pounds to the local economy and employed hundreds of people across all the series. Importantly, it has boosted our tourism industry on a worldwide stage. We must continue to explore the sector and try to secure future projects.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for bringing the motion to the House. I support the motion.

As colleagues across the Chamber have noted, the screen industries make up a vital component of our economy. It was estimated to be worth over £270 million in 2018. I welcome the motion, as it will enable Northern Ireland Screen to continue to develop our film industry and to nurture local expertise. Its important work has already helped to establish the region as a screen industry hub globally, attracting big names, as was outlined, such as 'Games of Thrones'. That has generated valuable opportunities for local creatives in front of and behind the camera. No more exporting our creative talent for them never to return; we now import them. The legacy of the shows lives on in the tourism services and the hospitality industries. In my city of Derry, we have experienced a boost since the success of 'Derry Girls'.

The funding order will allow Northern Ireland Screen to build on its previous successes, creating new employment opportunities and supporting creatives in overcoming the COVID challenges. It is imperative that we support this vibrant showcase industry in Northern Ireland in order to survive the current crisis and to thrive thereafter. Anything else would put livelihoods, creative activity and innovation at risk.

Pat Catney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Lagan Valley)

We have all seen the good work that Northern Ireland Screen has done over the past few years in promoting Northern Ireland. It brings investment and jobs to the region; in fact, it seems that I cannot watch a programme these days without recognising a building, street or a local hang-out. However, those are not the only things that Northern Ireland Screen does.

Northern Ireland Screen works to create opportunities for the widest possible range of people across the screen industries. It has an efficient education programme that works to make sure that we have future generations of skilled workers for the industry. It has an extensive trainee programme to give new opportunities and skills to young people who want to get involved in the industry. Importantly, it works in areas of deprivation to allow people from all backgrounds to become involved. Beyond that, Northern Ireland Screen fulfils an important cultural role in its work promoting the Irish language and Ulster-Scots arts sectors. The funds that it provides to those sectors allow them to grow and to be enjoyed for years to come. It is also important to realise that the creative industries supported go far beyond film and TV. There is support for creative activities and technical skills that are transferable to all arts and beyond.

I will go back to the matter at hand. It is great to see our area represented on the screen, and we all have fun trying to figure out where all the productions are located. However, we have to realise that each time we see Northern Ireland on the screen is a direct testimony to the foreign direct investment that Northern Ireland Screen has brought in. In this time of pandemic, when we are all concerned about investment in the region, Northern Ireland Screen continues to bring money, jobs and skills to Northern Ireland, and, for that, it is completely deserving of our support.

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

It seems that my party is very fond of talking about this. We seem to be the only party that is interested in talking about the motion, but that is fine. It is important.

I welcome the fact that the funding order is before the Assembly. I will not go through all the productions. Others have done it, and we all know how wonderful they are. The specific economic value of 'The Fall', 'Derry Girls' or whatever is not in doubt. Perhaps more important than or as important as the direct economic value has been the self-confidence that it has given to Northern Ireland in the post-Troubles era. For perhaps too long, too much of our economic policymaking has been about securing lower-value-added jobs announcements, and, while no one should be in any doubt or be sniffy about the importance of getting people into work, as, I am sure, the Minister is not, especially given the economic headwater that we are getting into, our creative industries stand out as a genuinely value-adding sector. However, we need to plan for the future, so that is what I want to talk about in brief today, and I will ask the Minister to reflect on it as she deals with the industry, going forward.

We have talked about 'Game of Thrones' tourism, which is wonderful, but it is in abeyance at the minute and we do not know when or if it will return to previous levels. There is a risk that we have almost become drunk on the success of 'Game of Thrones'. Wonderful though it is to see 'Game of Thrones' tourists at Tollymore, Strangford lough or the Dark Hedges in north Antrim, it is in abeyance at the minute, and 'Game of Thrones' tourism is not evidence of a thriving plan for our screen industry, going forward. We need to plan for the future.

The point that I make is that our screens industry — it is not just film and TV, as Pat Catney said; it includes a growing video-game production sector in Northern Ireland — is looking at the opportunities for the future, and the Department is supporting the industry in that. One of those areas is around virtual production and how film, TV and screens production in general adapts to the transformation that has already happened and will continue to happen in digital production. For example, lots of people in the sector are already reflecting on the fact that there is much more virtual production when it comes to big Hollywood films or big productions generally. That might mean that there is less need for some of the facilities that exist in Belfast at the minute. That does not mean that they will go into decline, but it means that they need to adjust their digital capabilities, including the skill set that we have in Northern Ireland and in Belfast in particular. What work is the Minister doing with, for example, the screen and media innovation labs and the Future Screens programme, which is funded by Northern Ireland Screen and, therefore, indirectly by her Department? That work is taking place with the universities here, and it is really important that we have an ongoing plan to ensure that we are at the cutting edge of things going forward and not, as it were, resting on our laurels.

On that note, it is worth raising an issue on which I have corresponded with her and that, I know, she cares about: I ask her to take up the cudgels again on BBC investment in Belfast. The BBC was due to invest nearly £80 million in inner South Belfast, in my constituency. Bluntly, it probably will not do that now. I have had correspondence from the outgoing director general and from the new director general, both of which suggest it will not happen. It is really important that the Minister and everyone here keeps up the pressure to ensure that we get the maximum investment in that, particularly to sustain digital skills. That was due to be a hub for digital skills in Belfast. We need that to continue.

Lastly, it is really important that we reflect on the work of Northern Ireland Screen. Northern Ireland Screen is a critical funder of film-making, TV production and games production in Northern Ireland. Many of the people whom it funds, encourages or gives seed, training and everything that is needed to are freelance creatives who have had an absolutely torrid few months. They have had — belatedly, it has to be said — an announcement from the Executive that funding that was made available via Barnett in July will finally be allocated. Can the Minister use her offices to put pressure on to ensure that that money is properly disbursed quickly and that people who work in our screen industries in Northern Ireland are able to access it in a way that works for them? For example, lots of them are self-employed. Some of them move from self-employed status to employed status as they go from one production to another. Sometimes, they are in Northern Ireland and are paying UK taxes; at other times, they travel abroad for a while. All of that means that there are complicated issues around how they fund themselves, so I ask her to engage with the Department for Communities on how that funding is got out. There are issues to address for the future, but, in general, I welcome the funding order, and I am glad that it is being made today.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I too welcome the making of the order. I do that as the MLA who drew attention in the Budget debate to the fact that we had this anomalous situation where Northern Ireland Screen was not being properly funded on a statutory basis but in an obscure way through the black box system that operates under the Budget Act. Of course, it was being funded well in excess of the supposed limit on that mode of funding. Therefore, it is good that it is now being regularised and brought onto a proper statutory footing. I am still puzzled as to how it ever was in the position that it was and how, for so many years, under both Departments, it continued without the proper statutory basis yet continued to be funded. It is good that, at last, that has been regularised. It makes an important contribution to our economy. Indeed, there are many unseen support industries across Northern Ireland that feed into the product that is Northern Ireland Screen, and I am glad now that the funding is being put on a lawful and proper basis.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I think that excitement was the feeling that most of my constituents had yesterday when Mr Adrian Dunbar and his colleagues were filming in west Belfast, and that sort of captured the excitement that the film and creative industries can give the people at any time but especially in the middle of a health pandemic. Obviously, the Minister will be aware of the group of hundreds of independent actors and artists who gathered, I think, last Friday through the We Make Events NI group in a socially distanced way. It is important that we hear the voices of those who work in the sector.

As Members have said, NI Screen is an important project, and it supports important programmes such as the Irish Language Broadcast Fund (ILBF). Such programmes are important and essential in developing and nurturing talent, but, by their design, they are limited in being able to take in only a certain number of people and places. I think that there is a general concern that there may be an approach that focuses solely or primarily on developing big showcase programmes. Those are obviously welcome and enjoyable for people, but, as has been referred to, freelance actors and others working in the creative industries generally may be forgotten about or cast aside. What assurances can the Minister give us with the order that it will not be the case that just the big organisations and the big projects will be supported? Finally, it is essential that we reclaim and keep to a basic principle that art should be for people's benefit and enjoyment and not be about maximising profit, be that locally or internationally.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank colleagues across the House for their support in ensuring that Northern Ireland Screen is appropriately funded and that the anomaly that we have had in its funding will be no longer. That is an important basis for going forward, and I thank you for your support on that.

For a few seconds, I will answer some of the questions and issues that have been raised by the debate. I think that we are all supportive of the funding model and mechanism that we need to fund Northern Ireland Screen.

We are all also very supportive of the work that Northern Ireland Screen does, as our colleague Matthew O'Toole said, in giving confidence to Northern Ireland and bringing back that sense of being able to step out on the international stage and do things that gain international acclaim, win awards and are really important for Northern Ireland. That is important.

The Chair referenced some of the issues around Northern Ireland Screen, including skills issues. Skills are really important for the future of the industry in Northern Ireland. I was really encouraged by my visit to my local further education college. That new build, which is opening soon in Banbridge, means huge investment in the local economy. There, the Southern Regional College will invest in digital and media skills, and 300 young students from across that region of Northern Ireland will be upskilling in all these areas. That is important and exciting for Northern Ireland: not only are we looking at how we support core and traditional values and industries but we are reaching out to new industries and training young people to be part of them. Again, I stress the importance of video game and virtual production. Those are hugely important to Northern Ireland, and I look forward, as the Minister responsible for skills, to doing more work in that area.

All of us in the House have, I think, collectively, expressed our pride in what Northern Ireland Screen does and what it brings to Northern Ireland, but it is also important to remember that it is a huge contributor to the economy. That can continue, and it can increase its contribution. It is one of the areas that we need to focus on for the new economy and for Northern Ireland's next century. I thank colleagues across the House for their support.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That the Northern Ireland Screen Commission (Funding) Order (Northern Ireland) 2020 be affirmed.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move

That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of the Fisheries Bill, as introduced in the House of Lords on 29 January 2020, and consents to the Fisheries Bill being taken forward by the Westminster Parliament.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on this debate. I invite the Minister to open the debate on the motion.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

This UK Government Bill contains UK-wide clauses, the majority of which relate to devolved matters. It also contains a small number of provisions that are specific to Northern Ireland. It is for this reason that I am seeking the Assembly's legislative consent to the Bill extending to Northern Ireland. However, before I get into the detail of these provisions, I would like to emphasise the importance of the Bill.

The Bill will ensure that a legal framework is in place so that the UK is able to operate as an independent coastal state under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 after the UK has left the common fisheries policy at the end of the year. In addition and no less importantly, it will allow us to create common approaches to fisheries management within the rest of the UK. This can only be good for the future of sustainable fishing, an objective that I am sure that we can we can all support and which I will return to later. The Bill as amended at Committee Stage in the House of Commons contains provisions of interest to Northern Ireland on fisheries objectives, fisheries statements and fisheries management plans; access to UK waters; fishing boat licensing; fishing opportunities; grants and charges; financial assistance; and the powers to amend UK law related to fisheries and aquatic animal health.

I turn now to the detail of the Bill and specifically to those clauses that are UK-wide and touch on devolved matters. Clause 1 defines UK fisheries objectives and is one of the Bill's key elements. There are eight objectives.

A sustainability objective will ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long term and managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits.

A precautionary objective will apply a precautionary approach to fisheries management and ensure that marine stocks are maintained above levels that are capable of producing maximum sustainable yield.

An ecosystem objective will implement an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. This will ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the ecosystem are minimised and also that incidental catches are minimised and, where possible, eliminated.

A scientific evidence objective will contribute to the collection of scientific data. It will also require the UK's fisheries administrations to work together, share data and make use of that data to inform our fisheries management policies.

A by-catch objective will seek to avoid or reduce catches of unwanted by-catch. It will also include undersized fish and the need to record and account for all catches so that they are not discarded at sea, but without incentivising the catching of undersized fish.

An equal access objective will ensure that the access of UK fishing boats to any area within British fishery limits is not affected by the fishing boat's home port or any other connection of the fishing boat or any of its owners to any place in the UK.

A national benefit objective will ensure that the activities of UK fishing boats bring social or economic benefits to the UK or part of the UK.

A climate change objective will seek to minimise the adverse effect of fishing and aquaculture activities on climate change and ensure that those activities adapt to climate change.

Before I leave these objectives, I would like to mention an amendment that was passed in the House of Lords but subsequently overturned by the UK Government in the House of Commons at Committee Stage. I mention it specifically because I know that it has been of interest to some Members and indeed others outside the House. This was the insertion of a new subsection into clause 1 so that the sustainability objective would become the primary fisheries objective. It would have required future policies to give priority to environmental sustainability over economic and social sustainability. In fact, it would have been prioritised over the other seven fisheries objectives. The UK Government's response was that there should be no hierarchy of objectives and that the place for applying these objectives to the policies in each jurisdiction should be the joint fisheries statement. That is a position that I support.

That takes me neatly on to clauses 2 and 3, which relate to the joint fisheries statement. Clause 2 places a duty on the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the devolved Administrations to set out their policies for achieving the fisheries objectives in clause 1 and how they intend to make use of fisheries management plans in order to achieve those objectives. It recognises that a joined-up approach is needed on the coordination of fisheries policies once the UK has left the common fisheries policy. The Bill as amended at Committee Stage in the House of Commons requires that the statement is published not later than two years from the date of Royal Assent. Clause 3 sets out the procedures that should follow in the preparation and publication of the statement and of any replacement of or amendment to it.

Clauses 6 to 11 relate to fisheries management plans. Clause 6 places a duty on the relevant fisheries authorities to prepare and publish the proposed fisheries management plans in the joint fisheries statement and sets out what should be specified in each plan, including whether there is sufficient scientific evidence to make an assessment of a stock's maximum sustainable yield.

Clause 7 sets out the requirements for preparing and publishing replacement plans or amendments to existing plans, while clause 8 sets out the procedure that should be followed. Clause 9 permits a fisheries authority to prepare and publish a fisheries management plan before a joint fisheries statement has been agreed and published. Clause 10 permits each fisheries authority to pursue the policies outlined in the joint fisheries statement or fisheries management plans that are applicable to them. That is to provide for some flexibility in decision-making. Clause 11 places a requirement on the fisheries authorities to report on the effectiveness of the policies in the joint fisheries statement and the fisheries management plans and to lay those in the respective legislatures.

I move to clauses 12 and 13, which cover access to British fisheries by foreign fishing boats and the regulation of foreign fishing boats. Clause 12 sets out when foreign fishing boats may enter British fishery limits, when they must leave and the offence for failing to comply. Clause 13 introduces schedule 2, which contains amendments to subordinate legislation and ensures that foreign fishing vessels are subject to the same regulations as British fishing boats when fishing in UK waters.

Clauses 14 to 18 deal with the licensing of fishing boats. Clause 14 sets out the circumstances in which a licence is required for British fishing boats, subject to certain exemptions. That maintains the status quo and ensures that a licence will be effective throughout UK waters. The clause also provides the DEFRA Secretary of State with the power to amend the section by regulations but only with the consent of the devolved Administrations. That respects the devolution settlements.

Clause 15 provides a power for devolved Administrations and the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) to grant licences to British fishing boats. Clause 16 prohibits fishing by foreign fishing boats unless they have a licence issued by a fisheries administration. The clause reflects the fact that, once the UK has left the common fisheries policy, access for foreign vessels to fish in UK waters is subject to negotiations. Members will be aware that that issue is key to ongoing negotiations between the UK Government and the European Union.

Clause 17 provides a power for the devolved Administrations and the Marine Management Organisation to grant licences to foreign fishing boats but with respect only to the area of UK waters for which they have competence. For us, that means the Northern Ireland zone.

Clause 18 defines "sea fishing licence" and introduces schedule 3, which makes further provision about sea fishing licences.

Clauses 19 to 22 set out the penalties for offences in relation to access and licensing, the jurisdiction of a court to try offences, and consequential amendments. Included in that are the circumstances in which the officer of a body corporate as well as the body corporate may be found guilty of committing a relevant offence.

That takes me to clauses 25 and 26, which relate to fishing opportunities. Clause 25 sets out the criteria for the distribution of fishing opportunities, according to transparent and objective criteria, including those of an environmental, social and economic nature. Clause 26 places a duty on fisheries authorities to ensure that fishing opportunities are not exceeded.

Clauses 33 to 35 relate to grants and charges. Clause 33 introduces schedule 6, which confers power on the Northern Ireland Department to give financial assistance or to arrange for financial assistance to be given to any person for a range of specified purposes. It must be given in accordance with a scheme established by regulations made by the Northern Ireland Department.

Clause 34 introduces schedule 7, which confers powers on the Northern Ireland Department, corresponding to those conferred on the Secretary of State by the clause. Those relate to the imposition of charges for carrying out specific marine functions. Members will wish to note that the regulation-making powers in schedules 6 and 7 would be subject to the Assembly's affirmation resolution and negative resolution procedures respectively.

Clause 35 amends the Fisheries Act 1981 in order to extend a requirement that the Sea Fish Industry Authority, which is perhaps better known as Seafish, must recover the full cost of any service that it provides to persons in other countries. That is a technical amendment that will enable Seafish to recover all its costs from persons in the EU regardless of what it charges those in the UK.

Clauses 36 to 41 relate to the power to make further provisions about fisheries, aquaculture, aquatic animal diseases and scope. Clause 42 introduces schedule 8, which provides the Northern Ireland Department with the power to make provisions about fisheries and aquaculture etc and aquatic animal diseases corresponding to those that are conferred on the Secretary of State by clauses 36 and 38. Those provisions relate to technical matters that are currently regulated by the EU under the common fisheries policy and will allow us to make changes to amend UK fisheries law.

Clause 44 introduces schedule 9, which contains amendments to the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 and in connection with prohibiting the killing, injuring or taking of seals. The current position in the UK is that permission can be granted, albeit under licence, to shoot seals in order to protect fisheries' interests, particularly salmon farms. However, countries that wish to export fish and fish products to the United States of America from 1 January 2020 must have obtained what is known as a comparability finding. That means that their fisheries' regimes and regulatory frameworks must comply with the United States's Marine Mammal Protection Act, which gives a very high level of protection to marine mammals and includes a prohibition on international killing. This amendment will enable us to meet those requirements.

Clause 46 introduces schedule 11, which makes minor and consequential amendments to retained direct EU legislation. Clauses 47 to 51 make final provisions. Those provide for amendments to certain provisions of subordinate legislation to ensure that any such provisions can be further amended by subordinate legislation in the future provided that regulations that are made under the Bill make:

"consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional, or saving"

provisions etc. They define commonly used terms in the Bill, set out the territorial extent of the Bill, explain when the Bill's provisions will come into effect and provide the short title, which, when the Bill becomes an Act, will be the Fisheries Act 2020.

Finally, I will turn to the schedules that apply to Northern Ireland. Schedule 1 sets out the procedures that will apply to the preparation, adoption and publication of the joint fisheries statement. Schedule 2 amends secondary legislation that will ensure that foreign fishing vessels that are licensed to fish in UK waters will be subject to the same requirements and restrictions as UK fishing vessels that are operating in those waters. Schedule 3 makes further provision in relation to sea fishing licences, and schedule 4 makes minor and consequential amendments to access to UK waters and licensing. Schedules 6 to 9 and schedule 11, which has been covered, also apply to Northern Ireland.

Before I finish, I will bring Members' attention to three amendments that will be tabled by the UK Government at Report Stage in the House of Commons. I am mentioning them here simply in the interests of transparency and completeness. The Bill as introduced amends the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 in order to provide powers for Scottish and Welsh Ministers to regulate fishing for marine conservation purposes in their respective offshore regions. First, the UK Government are being asked to table an amendment at Report Stage in the House of Commons that will provide DAERA with similar powers to regulate fishing in the Northern Ireland offshore region.

Secondly, schedule 2, to which I referred, includes amendments to subordinate legislation that was made to address local issues that, because of EU law, could be applied only to UK vessels. The UK Government have been asked to table an amendment to that schedule at Report Stage in the House of Commons in order to include six Northern Ireland statutory rules so that the restrictions and requirements that are provided by them will apply equally to all fishing vessels that are licensed to fish in the Northern Ireland zone.

Thirdly, a new provision should be tabled at Report Stage in the House of Commons to provide Scottish and Welsh Ministers and DAERA with a power to enter into arrangements with, for example, other devolved Administrations and their marine management organisations. That amendment would provide the legislative basis for putting in place those joint working arrangements.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

As we have heard from the Minister, this is a Westminster Bill that aims to provide for a new legal framework to replace the common fisheries policy (CFP). It will make provision for fisheries, aquaculture, marine conservation and the functions of the Marine Management Organisation, and in doing so will revoke the EU legislation that currently exists.

There are a number of clauses within the Bill that extend to this jurisdiction for which legislative consent is being sought and they have been outlined in the LCM. The Committee has reported on those and a copy of our report was provided by email to all MLAs on 7 July. A supplementary LCM has since been tabled to take account of further amendments that affect here. The Committee took evidence on that last week and I will refer to those amendments later.

I want to make it clear today that, as a Committee, we had a very short timeframe in which to consider the Bill. Not only was the Committee considering the Fisheries Bill, but it also had the Environment Bill and the Agriculture Bill, all within weeks of one another. That caused much concern amongst Committee members. We were finishing our consideration of the evidence when the COVID-19 crisis hit in March and that also had an impact on our scrutiny. This type of rushed scrutiny is not how we like to do business.

The Committee wishes it to be clearly understood that due to the lack of information on the Fisheries Bill and the subsequent amendments, and the limited time that it has had to consider them, it has been unable to fully explore and understand the potential impacts and implications for this jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Committee’s consideration of the amendments has been further compounded by the fact that it is being asked to do so in the context of the legal uncertainties around the Internal Market Bill and the withdrawal agreement.

Our fishing produce is world-renowned and much value is placed on our exported produce. Nevertheless, many will know that the fishing industry is a dangerous occupation and it is a living that is hard-earned. Therefore, we must not merely nod through legislation which could create further complexities for our fishing industry, including financial, technical and territorial problems. Many coastal families and communities have seen fishing handed down from generation to generation and have no desire to see further hardship or regulation for the sake of it. For that reason, and many others that I will outline shortly, the Committee decided not to take a position on the legislative consent motion.

I will now look briefly at how the Committee undertook its scrutiny of the Bill in the short time that it had to do so. We took oral and written evidence on one day only — 5 March 2020 — from a number of stakeholders. Ideally, we would have preferred to have heard from many more, but as I have already said, time was against us.

The Committee commissioned a research paper from the Assembly’s Research and Information Service (RaISe) on the Fisheries Bill and received a written submission from Brexit and Environment, which is a network of impartial academic experts who analyse the implications of Brexit for government.

From the evidence gathered by the Committee and analysis of the Bill in the time that we had, the Committee identified a number of issues that I share with you today.

The first issue that I want to draw Members attention to is the hierarchy of fishing objectives that the Bill revolves around, which will lead to a joint fisheries statement underpinned by fish management plans. There are eight objectives and they are sustainability, precautionary, eco-system, scientific evidence, by-catch, equal access, national benefit and climate change.

Stakeholders expressed some concern around the definition of eco-system and stated that they would like to see the definition expanded to include the sustainability of the fleet and the communities that they support, in order to allow for a holistic approach. Others considered that they should be underpinned by a clear legal duty on relevant authorities to achieve them, alongside a level of consistency between the devolved Administrations to ensure that the objectives are achieved.

There were numerous issues identified in the RaISe briefing which the Committee considered in relation to the objectives, such as the role for Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) with regard to the scientific evidence objectives etc. These are outlined on page 9 of the Committee report.

Although some of the stakeholders broadly welcomed the objectives and the joint fisheries statement and the fish management plans, we as a Committee felt that there is a distinct lack of clarity and detail around those particular clauses, making it very difficult to assess what the impact will be on the fishing industry. Again, the lack of time and resources afforded to the Committee has prevented the full and rigorous scrutiny that the Bill required.

Access and licensing is another feature of the Bill, which will revoke and replace all current powers for licensing authorities to license for fishing in British waters.

Throughout the Bill there are references to "foreign fishing vessels", which some members of the Committee objected to when used in connection with vessels from the South of Ireland. Clarification was sought from the Department on the use of that terminology. Officials advised the Committee that the term is a recognised one, which is used worldwide to define vessels that are not registered in the country that is being referred to. They further advised that the term is used 53 times in the Bill. For the purposes of the Committee report, it was agreed to replace the term "foreign fishing vessel" with "non-UK fishing vessels or boats".

The Bill requires such non-UK vessels to have a UK-issued licence to fish in UK waters. That requirement will revoke the current arrangements, which automatically provide rights to such vessels. In addition, the Bill will revoke provisions in the Fishery Limits Act 1976 and will introduce a new requirement that non-UK vessels must be licensed by the Marine Management Organisation or by one of the fisheries administrations to fish in UK waters.

Clause 17 empowers the relevant fisheries authority to issue licences to non-UK vessels to fish inside their zone. Stakeholders raised the issue of such licensing and of potential governance gaps. Concern was expressed about the potential for a non-UK vessel to access Isle of Man waters post-Brexit. To do so would be entirely legal but the potential exists for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and claims that fish that were caught in one area were caught elsewhere.

The Committee is concerned that uncertainty exists around moving from fishing waters of a European jurisdiction to Scotland, Wales, England or here, including the Isle of Man and the South of Ireland and further guidance on that aspect is required. Stakeholders also raised the issue of remote electronic monitoring (REM) as a fishing management tool. Further information on REM can be found in the Committee's report at page 12. The Committee raised that matter with departmental officials.

The Department advised that it has a sea fisheries inspectorate which has an enforcement and control remit. However, that role will change on 31 December 2020 and the risks and resource requirement for that was being considered. That is another area that the Committee was unable to explore in any great detail with the Department or stakeholders. Questions remain over the resource implications for the sea fisheries inspectorate to enable it to ensure compliance with licensing requirements, as well as what its role and remit will be on 1 January 2021 and how it will manage the requirements that are contained in the Fisheries Bill.

Members will be aware that fishing quotas have always been the subject of heated debate and have long been one of the main criticisms of the common fisheries policy. Clause 23 of the Bill provides that the Secretary of State will determine, in a calendar year, the fishing quota for the UK, which will take international obligations into account. The Bill states that the Secretary of State must consult with the four fisheries administrations.

The Committee was keen to explore with the Department if any assessment had been undertaken of the potential for an increase in fishing opportunities for our local fleet. Officials advised the Committee that an assessment of the benefits arising out of Brexit had been mapped. However, the main fishing opportunities for fleets here are mostly in the Irish Sea for prawns and no major change to quotas are anticipated.

Stakeholders advised the Committee that while they envisage that the current method of allocating quotas will be continued, they have concerns about the distribution of any additional quotas that will come their way following exit from the EU. They expressed concern that the fishing zone here is small and does not accurately reflect the fishing activity of our fleet. If the decision is made to divide up fishing waters by square miles of territorial waters, then the consequences would be disastrous. Other stakeholder concerns, such as those relating to the Hague Preference and the infrastructure constraints of our fishing ports, have been outlined in the Committee's report.

Previously, under the CFP, financial assistance was available under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). That allowed the fish and aquaculture industries to improve the marine and aquatic environment and to develop areas in which fish or aquacultural activities are carried out. Our fishing harbours also used that funding for capital and infrastructural works. The Committee was keen to hear about what the Department was considering as a replacement for that funding, as the UK Government had advised that each devolved Administration will lead on their own replacement funding schemes.

The Committee heard that while there had been discussions on the matter with the British Government, nothing has yet been guaranteed. However, the Department indicated that it was hopeful that any such funding would be similar to what had been available through EMFF but that it would be subject to the spending review. Stakeholders welcomed the assurance that a replacement scheme for EMFF was being considered. Nevertheless, the Committee has highlighted a number of concerns in relation to that in its report.

One of the concerns is whether the new scheme would be compatible with the state aid considerations contained in article 10 of the protocol. That is very significant, given what the Internal Market Bill states regarding state aid. Members will be glad to know that I do not intend to outline all our concerns here; instead, I will refer them to page 18 of our report.

The Committee report also draws attention to a number of factors outside the Bill that will impact on the implementation of its provision. Those include the implementation of the protocol, trade agreements, the voisinage agreement, migrant labour and marine conservation. While the detail of that is on pages 18 to 24 of the report, I want to touch on some of the key points.

It remains unclear to the Committee what the interface between the Fisheries Bill and the protocol will be. That uncertainty is further compounded by the Internal Market Bill. For example, there are many unanswered questions, including potential issues around the minimum landing size, the marketing of seafood produce, the risk of regulatory divergence and whether the annex 2 commitments will have an adverse financial cost on the fishing industry. The Committee is aware that there is uncertainty about where fish can be sold. Currently, any fish landed here are sold to the EU and are subject to free market access. How that may change after Brexit is unclear.

I will now quickly mention the voisinage agreement, which allows reciprocal access to fish in the nought- to six-nautical-mile zone between the territorial waters of North and South. It had operated successfully until 2016 when the legality of the agreement was challenged by a number of Irish anglers. That led to a court case that then banned boats from the North in Irish waters, despite the previously agreed limit. However, the Sea Fisheries (Amendment) Act was introduced by the Irish Government in April 2019, and the previous arrangement was reinstated. The Committee explored the issue with officials, who advised that they are keen to keep the voisinage agreement separate from the general fisheries agreement with the EU. The Committee has stated that it would like to see all efforts made to maintain that and the good relations that currently exist between the fishing industries across the island of Ireland.

The importance of migrant labour in the fishing industry cannot be overstated. There has been a reliance on workers from overseas labour markets for many years, and the fishing industry would not be able to cope without them.

On the issue of marine conservation, the Committee noted that we do not have fully devolved competency in that area. The Minister has written to his DEFRA counterpart to raise that issue. We had an update on that at our meeting on 24 September, and we will continue to follow it up as time goes on.

Furthermore, the Committee noted that there will be considerable implications for marine conservation arising out of the Environment Bill and a crossover with the Agriculture Bill, but it was unable to explore that further due to the time constraints placed upon it.

The Committee is concerned that many of the provisions in the Bill will be enacted by secondary legislation that provides less of a scrutiny role or opportunity for amendment than that which is provided through primary legislation.

The Committee heard from departmental officials on 24 September that there have been a number of amendments to the Bill, as well as a number of anticipated amendments that will be tabled at Report stage. The amendments that have been made include the following: extending the time frame in which the joint fisheries statement is to be published; ability to publish information on financial assistance; amendments to the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 and the Wildlife Order to allow for trade to the USA; a technical amendment to the definition of minimum conservation reference size; and the electronic communication of the granting of temporary licences.

Officials further advised that the amendments to be tabled at Report stage that will impact on this jurisdiction are the following: powers for the Department to regulate fishing for marine conservation in our offshore regions; amendments to six statutory rules to ensure that the restrictions and requirements in them will apply equally to all fishing vessels to fish in the NI zone; and powers for the devolved Administrations to enter into arrangements with other organisations, including marine management.

The Committee discussed that update with the officials in the short time that it had and agreed that, due to the lack of information and the limited time that it had to consider the amendments, it had been unable to fully explore and understand the potential impacts and implications for the jurisdiction. That difficulty has been further compounded by the fact that it is being asked to do so in the context of the legal uncertainties around the Internal Market Bill and the withdrawal agreement. That is all that I want to say as Chair of the AERA Committee.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the opportunity to comment today. As Members will be aware, deep-sea fishing and fishing rights for our trawler crews have been a constant concern over many years, with highly charged debates over fishing stocks, quotas, sustainability, rights and access to waters. At the heart of the discontent is EU policy that has been detrimental to our indigenous trawler crews. Ask any of our trawler crews in Northern Ireland and they will agree that EU policies, over the years, have had a truly negative and damaging effect on industry in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I welcome the legislative consent motion before the House today and the fact that fishermen across the United Kingdom will, in my view, be in a much better position fishing in UK waters post-transition than has been the case for many years.

The Bill is vital because after the UK leaves the common fisheries policy, the Bill will provide a legal framework for the United Kingdom to go forward as an independent coastal state under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982. It is essential to provide important continuity and a seamless transition from EU fishing law to administration and protection under UK-wide and specific devolved nations' regulations. The Bill is a combination of elements from the common fisheries policy and other objectives that have been tailored to best help and sustain our fishing industry in the United Kingdom. That is only to be expected, given the opportunity that is presented by leaving the European Union. It will be absolute folly if Westminster, the Assembly and other devolved regions did not make the very best of this opportunity to ensure that our fishermen are offered the greatest opportunity of establishing a thriving industry, post-transition, given that control can be regained over UK waters. It is also important to understand that control does not mean preventing access to our waters, but rather access to waters can be much more effectively controlled and monitored. This is a key element of sustainability and growth.

Sustainability has been one of the biggest debating points and, of course, it is the most vital part of the new arrangements. I believe that it will be adequately addressed as all stakeholders realise that sustainability of fishing stock is vital for their long-term survival as an industry. Our seas are a hugely important resource, both for food and our priceless marine environment. Our seas must be treated with the respect required to preserve the balance in marine environment and to ensure that a high-quality food resource is sustained for many more years to come. The Bill provides the opportunity to ensure that those important elements are protected by a protocol that is better suited to our coastal resources and not a quagmire of legislation that is untimely.

The Hague preference has an impact on Northern Ireland, and it is important that these types of straitjackets can be cast off as part of the new arrangements and be replaced with much more reasonable and tailored regulations. I have listened, in Committee, to much anxiety from some parties around the table on this issue. However, they must see the opportunity that exists with this important opportunity to right many EU legislative wrongs. There will be further opportunities ahead through the joint fisheries statement process, and I know that the industry, the Minister and the Committee will have more input in the finer detail. That will be an important process. I support the motion.

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

I thank the Minister for presenting the legislative consent motion today. From the SDLP's point of view, we welcome the opportunity to debate the legislative consent motion on the Fisheries Bill. As the Chairman said, I raised the issue at the Committee on Thursday around the lack of information on the legislative consent motion and the limited time that the Committee had to consider it. It has been unable to fully explore and understand the potential impacts and implications for this jurisdiction. This difficulty has been further compounded by the fact that I and other legislatures are being asked to do so in the context of the legal uncertainties around the UK Internal Market Bill and the withdrawal agreement.

The legislative consent motion is required to provide for a new legal framework to replace the common fisheries policy because of Brexit. There is concern that the legislative consent, although delayed, may still be sought for prematurely. The COVID-19 pandemic and Westminster parliamentary procedures have severely restricted the Assembly's ability to properly scrutinise this and, indeed, other elements of legislation needed for the end of the transition period. Questions remain about provisions for aquaculture and marine conservation, the impact of climate change and the details of the proposals for legally binding fisheries management plans. There may also be significant changes in circumstances due to the ongoing negotiations between the UK and the EU for a future agreement on fisheries. Fisheries access remains a key focus of attention of any future UK/EU trade agreement and both sides appear to be still some distance apart from those separate objectives.

Fisheries is a sector that has been impacted by the British Government's unilaterally declared intention to break with the terms of the Ireland protocol in the withdrawal agreement. Some Members may imagine that breaking that protocol will make life easier for the fisheries sector, but I suspect that they may be mistaken.

The UK Government's negotiating tactics on this issue have merely increased the large degree of uncertainty that was already there for the fisheries sector, and indeed, a multiplicity of other sectors. The good relations that currently exist between and with the fishing industries across the entire island of Ireland are also not addressed by the Bill. Such good relations depend heavily on trust and that trust has been severely tested by the British Government's negotiating tactics.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

Yes, sure.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I have listened to the Committee Chair and the Member talking about the great relationships that have existed between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. However, it was only in 2019 that they were forced to put into law something that had been in place since the 1960s, providing access for boats from Northern Ireland to fish off the limits of the Irish Republic. I have to say that it took them a long time to catch on, excuse the pun. Clearly, that proves that they wanted the benefit of our waters, and we were unable to get the benefit of theirs.

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

I thank the Member for his intimate knowledge of the legislature of the Irish Republic.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

And?

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

In addition, there are areas of the Bill where clarification is still needed. The Bill grants the UK Secretary of State at DEFRA the power to set fisheries objectives and fishing opportunities for the local fleet. There is little detail yet of what those objectives will mean or how they will be delivered. We will, in effect, be told where the fleet can fish and how much it can catch, as calculated by a yet-to-be-determined method.

In the latest amendments to the Bill — I heard the Minister said that there are further later amendments to it — the Secretary of State will be given more time to come to a decision on those matters before publishing the joint fisheries statement. It might have been better to seek an extension to that transition period, which would have allowed more time for detailed scrutiny of the Bill. We may have been touching upon that in Committee, too.

The sector is also heavily reliant on capital grants to maintain and improve its infrastructure. In the absence of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, the Minister's Department will be responsible for future financial assistance for the fisheries sector. To date, the Department has been unable to secure — this was touched upon earlier, and the Chair referred to it too — any commitment from the UK Government to provide funding for those schemes.

The key focus of this Bill should have been the future sustainability of the fisheries sector. To that end, it would have been better if sustainability was the prime objective of the Bill and all fisheries management decisions assessed on that basis. There is lack of clarity, for example, on how fish stocks, particularly shared stocks, will be monitored and managed through the proposed fisheries management plans. It is essential that fish stocks are not finished above independently-recommended scientific levels. We have a poor record on environmental protection and weak governance in certain areas. It is far from clear, at this point, what the impact of the Bill, and other Brexit-related crossover Bills, will have on the conservation of the marine ecosystem.

In summary, there remains a great deal of uncertainty around the provisions of the Bill and how they are to be implemented.

Rosemary Barton (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The fishing industry was one part of our economy that always appeared to have a strained relationship with the European Union. The common fisheries policy was, of course, the structure that regulated and controlled our fishing industry. Indeed, it has been claimed that this same policy ended many a family fishing business in Northern Ireland and livelihood in the industry.

Many in the House will recall the sector eagerly awaiting the announcement from the EU Fisheries Council each December to see what further changes in the fishing quota would be implemented in the following year.

One of the criticisms of the common fisheries policy by the fishing industry is that other EU fishing boats land more fish from UK waters than UK boats. A House of Lords Library briefing on the Fisheries Bill noted:

"On average, between 2012 and 2016, other EU member states’ vessels annually landed in the region of 749,000 tonnes of fish ... caught in UK waters.6 UK vessels landed approximately 96,000 tonnes ... caught in other member states’ waters per year in the same period."

As 31 December approaches, there is an expectation that, when the UK exits the EU, the UK, including Northern Ireland, will be able to regulate fishing in its offshore regions again. The EU has stated that its position is to maintain as far as is possible the existing traditional arrangements for EU boats to access the fish in UK waters. However, the UK position is that it will control its own waters and that fishing opportunities will primarily be for British boats. There is considerable speculation that there could be trade-offs between EU access to UK fishing waters and access by UK financial services to EU markets.

There are a number of government amendments to the Bill at this stage that are general practical amendments. Other amendments were agreed in the Lords but were removed by the House of Commons. Those initial amendments were supported by the Northern Ireland Marine Task Force but opposed by fishing industry bodies.

While the Fisheries Bill is a legislative framework, it is very necessary to put practical and administrative aspects in place following the UK's decision to leave the European Union. It also has the environmental sustainability of the fishing industry at its core, which will deliver a positive future for fishing and conservation. The sector, over the years, has been key to environmental sustainability in our waters; indeed, if it had not been for its management in conjunction with the authorities, the marine environment would be in a much worse place. With the framework outlined in the Fisheries Bill, I urge Members to support the legislative consent motion.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

On behalf of Alliance, I support the legislative consent motion, although I see it as a holding position — an interim measure —and a framework on which to build a Bill and policies that are bespoke to Northern Ireland's unique circumstances. The Fisheries Bill goes some way towards addressing the conservation governance gaps that our exit from the European Union exposes. However, issues remain that need to be addressed.

I express my disappointment that some key amendments were removed by the UK Government at the Public Bill Committee stage. Those amendments would have addressed sustainability as the prime objective of the Bill and provided for the introduction of remote electronic equipment and cameras on vessels. The removal of those amendments undermines the primary objective of the Bill, which is to make:

"a legal commitment to fish sustainably".

Regarding Brexit and Northern Ireland's unique position, the local fish processing sector, whilst small in comparison with that in other parts of the UK, makes a significant contribution to the areas in which it is based and not just in economic terms. The sea that surrounds this island supports daily lives, provides multiple resources and services, including food, renewable energy sources, tourism, leisure opportunities, physical and mental health benefits and, of course, cultural heritage. While the sea-fishing industry in Northern Ireland makes a significant contribution to our economy and culture, it is heavily reliant on accessing markets outside the region. The value of landings outside Northern Ireland waters is greater than that of local landings, which could present challenges following the transition period.

The urgency of the EU exit timetable was mentioned, as was the additional pressure of limited capacity and time for the AERA Committee to give full and proper consideration to forthcoming Bills and procedures. That is of the utmost concern when we consider the importance of the forthcoming and now delayed joint fisheries statement.

Whatever the outcome of the current process, the challenges of balancing the needs of the sector with environmental issues will remain and will be real. Human activities threaten the health of our oceans. It is estimated that over 80% of marine pollution comes from land-based activities, such as pesticides and nutrients used in agriculture ending up in coastal waters, resulting in oxygen depletion that kills marine plants and shellfish. Overfishing is, of course, also a threat to sustainability.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO) estimates that 31·4% of fish stocks are either already fished to capacity or overfished. That is counterintuitive, considering that sustainable fisheries management and more abundant fish stocks can provide the fishing industry with greater long-term security. It is estimated that recovering fish stocks to healthy levels would result in a 37% rise, which is the equivalent of £241 million per year in the value of fish landings UK-wide. It would, of course, create many more jobs as well.

Now, more than ever, it is crucial that primary legislation enshrine sustainability in law, and, as a framework Bill, the Fisheries Bill provides an opportunity to do that. However, the Bill should have been changed to address a more delicate marine environment and depleted fish stocks. The Fisheries Bill presents us with an opportunity to create bespoke policies that are relevant to Northern Ireland and our unique position and to achieve lasting change for the better. Therefore, with a view to future solutions and improvements, which, I hope, the Minister can reflect on, I am content to support the LCM and do so in the knowledge that we need to avoid further confusion and delays at this stage.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

I am pleased to see the motion, as it represents another step in the journey towards taking back control of our fishing industry. I believe that, working collectively with those in the sector — the Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation Ltd (NIFPO) and the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation (ANIFPO) — and the other devolved regions, we now have the opportunity to herald a new dawn for UK fishing. Whilst the Bill will never satisfy everyone fully, it represents a practical framework and will provide certainty for the sector at this time. As my party colleague at Westminster, Jim Shannon, the MP for Strangford, said at Second Reading, the Bill is workable, fair and fit for purpose.

Flexibility is key for the industry and, therefore, key in respect of the Bill. , the Secretary of State must have sufficient capability to adapt policy decisions to meet the needs of the industry, working alongside the devolved Governments. Furthermore, flexibility is needed in order for us to set future total allowable catches (TACs) that are fair and practical, whilst ensuring that we have sufficient environmental protections to ensure long-term sustainable fish stocks.

There is a balance to be struck that works for the industry, and, with the cooperation of the industry, this practical and pragmatic approach represents a significant departure from the common fisheries policy. Proportionally speaking, Northern Ireland has the smallest sea area of any of the UK regions, and the local industry relies heavily on its ability to operate beyond local waters. I am therefore pleased that the Bill protects the rights of all UK fishermen to operate the length and breadth of our territorial waters. Such equal access will be of benefit to local fishing vessels operating further afield.

In relation to the role of DAERA, I note that the Secretary of State's remit extends to offshore waters of Northern Ireland only. That should be devolved, in keeping with other regions, and I encourage the Minister to make representations on that point.

Briefly and in conclusion, should the NI protocol be enacted, it must not be allowed to place any additional burdens on our fishing industry. As with other sectors, our fish suppliers must have unfettered access to the GB market if they are to compete and if we are to have an economically viable industry. As a Strangford representative, I can speak about the decades of damage that have been inflicted by the shackles of EU bureaucracy on the fishing industry. Under the Fisheries Bill, our fishermen will be able to fish in their own waters, land their catches in our own ports, create economic growth and rekindle an industry that has been all but denied by Europe. I wish the Bill well as it moves to Report and Third Reading in the coming days.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

We have had enough debates in the Chamber to establish that there is little, if anything, positive resulting from Brexit. We have also had enough evidence to suggest that the current British Government are not exactly trustworthy, and that is particularly the case where the interests of the island of Ireland are concerned. Giving consent via the LCM with that knowledge and experience of Boris Johnson and the Tories and in the context of no overall agreement with the EU on fisheries is akin to watching the film, 'Salem's Lot' from behind the sofa and hoping that everyone in the town remains safe. Never mind their duplicity in the Internal Market Bill, they are also trying to untangle the commitment contained in the political declaration that fishing would be linked to the overall trade negotiations. That fact undermines the trade negotiations, which are vital to the future economy of this island. It would not be particularly prudent for the Assembly to give carte blanche to the Westminster Parliament until we know what kind of deal, if any, is worked out with the EU on fishing rights. I note that that position is shared by the Scottish and Welsh representatives who attempted to stall the Bill at Second Reading in Westminster until or if an agreement was reached with EU negotiators.

Over and above the clear political danger of allowing the British Government to proceed with the Bill, as a member of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, I obviously share the concerns on the details or lack of details outlined by the Committee Chair and other Committee members. In particular, I note the comments of officials about the potential increase in opportunities for the local fishing fleet. The officials said that the main fishing opportunities are mostly in the Irish Sea and no major change to the quota is anticipated.

The Committee has not been afforded the time to properly explore the impact of the Bill on the North. There is no certainty about how or if the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund will be replaced. The EMFF is an important fund for the local fishing fleet. The Bill does not mention the post-Brexit impact on the migrant workers who currently make up 50% of those employed on trawlers in the North. As with all things, the fishing industry is heavily integrated North and South. Whether it is buyers, producers, processors or landings North and South, they are all interdependent, and the Bill does not take that into account. It remains unclear how the Bill will interact with the Irish protocol, and the uncertainty is complicated and compounded by the Internal Market Bill.

I have concerns that are, again, shared by representatives in other devolved Parliaments in Scotland and Wales that aspects of the policy that should be devolved can be overridden by clause 12, which gives power of decision to the British Government. Indeed, responsibility for the designation and management of marine protected areas in the North's waters will lie not with the Assembly, as it should, but with the British Secretary of State. The British Government will be responsible for deciding quotas.

Over and above that and with all the other aspects about amendments being taken out and the concerns shared by members of the AERA Committee, I do not think that we can allow the LCM to proceed.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I welcome the opportunity to air my views on the Bill. Simply put, the Bill is not fit for purpose. It is riddled with loopholes, contradictions and vague language. The British Government may claim that they are taking back their waters, but the Bill is being sold on the same false premise as Brexit was. If the British Government fail to reach an agreement with the EU by the end of this year, it will mean that control of the waters around these islands will be governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which requires cooperation on efforts to agree rules and access to waters as well as setting catch limits and standards on the conservation and management of marine resources. As my colleague and Chair of the AERA Committee, Declan McAleer, mentioned, there is no detail in the Bill of what will happen to migrant workers or of how the vital EU funding that the North's fishing industry receives will be replaced or how much.

As has been pointed out by the Welsh and Scottish Governments, Westminster has used every opportunity since Brexit to scale back devolution. Responsibility for the designation and management of marine protected areas in the North's offshore waters will not lie with the Assembly but with the Secretary of State. Clause 12 states that, although devolved Administrations will control their own fisheries, they will be subject to the terms and conditions of any trade agreements that the British Government make with other countries. We can develop all the regulations and rules that we like around access, environmental protection and sustainability, but it all counts for nothing once the British Government sign a deal with another trading bloc.

The British Government will be responsible for deciding how quotas are distributed between England, Scotland, Wales and the North. That is a huge conflict of interest given that the Tories have everything to gain from favouring fishermen in England and nothing to lose by dealing a bad hand to fishermen in Scotland, Wales and here in the North. Does anyone think that a Government who boasted only recently about breaking international law will see any issue with acting as poacher and gamekeeper when it comes to quotas?

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

Will the Member give way?

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

No, I will not. Thank you.

The Bill makes multiple references to how devolved Administrations will be consulted about various issues, such as landing requirements, but it does not make clear what the actual power of devolved Administrations will be on those issues. We know all too well here that being consulted by the British Government means nothing. We were consulted about our views on Brexit, and, on providing them, those views were promptly ignored. The Government have shown that they cannot be trusted. We require definitive language that cannot be misinterpreted or abused.

Other powers that should be in the hands of devolved institutions but are being reserved by Whitehall include provisions about fisheries and aquaculture and powers to impose quotas; limit time at sea; mandate processing procedures; determining what gear can be used and how; deciding how fisheries products can be marketed; imposing regulations over landings; and setting targets on marine stock and rules around enforcement. The Bill has little to say of substance about boats under 10 metres, which make up the majority of our fleet and are vital for the sustainability of our oceans and our coastal communities.

There is so much about the Bill that is unknown, ranging from how annex 2 of the protocol will affect fishermen and tariffs, to issues around migrant workers, abandoned vessels and boats owned in one jurisdiction but docked in another. How are we supposed to consent to something when we do not even fully know what we are supposed to be consenting to? The Bill is an attempt to shoehorn us into a framework that suits England. It is not cognisant of the interconnectedness and all-island nature of our local fishing industry.

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

There are specific and general concerns about the Bill to which we are being asked to give consent today. The provisions that establish an alternative to the common fisheries policy are necessary to regulate fishing in the UK following the end of the transition period. There is no denying that we need something to replace the provisions in retained EU law and the common fisheries policy. However, I put on record my frustration; the Bill is yet another example of rushed-through Brexit legislation that touches on a devolved competence that we are being asked to consent to with minimal opportunity for scrutiny and without information about what it means for local fisheries in the long term.

The Chair of the Committee mentioned earlier that his Committee had been able to take just one day of evidence. The Committee was also explicit in raising several concerns about the Bill in its reports. It noted that, due to the limited time to scrutinise the Bill, it has been unable to fully explore and understand the potential effects and implications for the local fishing industry and the associated processing industry, which are myriad, as we have discussed today.

In effect, we are being asked to give consent to a Bill and powers that we do not fully understand. That was the case yesterday, and I am afraid that it will be the case, probably, in the weeks and months to come. We are not being given sufficient time to debate and scrutinise the myriad legislation, both primary and secondary, that relates to Brexit.

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

I thank the Member for giving way. As a Member for the South Down constituency, I am fully aware of the many households that depend on the fishing industry for their main source of income. Is it true to say that the discussion here today has silenced those voices? There has not been an opportunity for those who are deeply invested in the welfare of the industry to give an opinion the Bill going through the House today.

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

As someone who grew up a few miles from Ardglass, I think that you are right. It is definitely clear that we need to hear from the local fishing industry in detail, albeit it is true that it also wants to see support.

It is also true, as people have mentioned on the other side of the Chamber, that large parts of the fishing industry have been sceptical about the common fisheries policy and other aspects of EU membership over the years. It is worth saying, however, that the majority of Northern Ireland's catch goes to the EU market. It is true that parts of our industry have disliked the quota system that has operated for several decades, but, having caught the fish, they recognise that they need a market in which to sell it.

I will go back to a couple of specific concerns. First, there are question marks, as others have said, over how the provisions interact with the protocol and, indeed, over whether they will comply with the commitments made to abide by EU regulation on things such as safety at sea, marine pollution, and fishing limits for species conservation in marine ecosystems. Another specific example that the Bill touches on is aquaculture. The Bill is silent on the aquaculture industries that are in cross-border bodies of water. It does not say anything about the trout in Lough Melvin or the oysters in Carlingford lough. I am afraid that it is a fact that we in Northern Ireland share bodies of water with the rest of Ireland, and we need to understand what DAERA is doing to reflect that.

Secondly, I agree with those who raised concerns about the fact that the attempt by the House of Lords to promote sustainability as the primary criterion for fishing stocks was removed from the Bill. That is regrettable. I ask the Minister to clarify his position on sustainability as it relates to Northern Ireland and its quotas.

Thirdly, there is an issue around the access that our fishing industry — trawlers and the fish and seafood processing industry — has to migrant labour. Frankly, both rely on it. It is a huge issue for them. Although the legislation does not reflect on immigration, it is the case that this is another sector in which a Northern Ireland industry is being negatively impacted on by the immigration policy being pursued by the Home Office. This should not be a question of your view on the protocol but a question of whether the UK Government will finally listen to Northern Ireland about how migration policy can be adjusted locally. I ask the Minister to take that matter up with his colleague in the Economy Department. As I said, it would be useful to hear from DAERA about how it plans to mitigate the negative impact that the new UK immigration policy would have on our skills base.

A couple of Members talked about the voisinage arrangement. Mr Storey mentioned it, the differential arrangements and the different approach taken by trawlers from the South. He is right that those are ongoing issues. No one hides away from them, but they are something that we need the Department to establish, and this legislation does not establish how the interaction will work between trawlers that move North/South.

Let us be absolutely clear: a lot of the fishing industry that has been most vocal about wanting Brexit and massively increased quotas is made up of fishing organisations in the north of Scotland. There is a simple reason for that. They get a hell of a lot more water to fish from. Much more fishing happens in the North Sea, which is much bigger, and they have much greater access to it. Fair enough. The UK waters in which Northern Ireland trawlers largely fish are in the Irish Sea. As others have mentioned, it is not clear that there is going to be a particular increase in quotas in the Irish Sea. Nor is it clear what is going to happen to Northern Ireland trawlers' access if they sail a few miles offshore from Kilkeel and into Irish waters. We therefore need to hear from the Department on how the Bill is going to affect that. If that involves bilateral working with Dublin, I am absolutely happy with that. I am glad that the Minister is willing —.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

I am more than happy to give way.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you very much for raising an interesting point about our Northern Ireland fishing fleet. Of course, however, some of our fleet has the opportunity to fish in other United Kingdom waters, particularly down in the Celtic Sea. One of the biggest issues that we have in the Celtic Sea is that the French fishing fleet takes about 84% of the quota of cod. Perhaps with the changes that are likely to come out of this new fishing legislation, there will be greater opportunity for Northern Ireland fishing vessels to fish around our waters.

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

That is possibly the case. I do not know if the Member has spoken to many trawlers from Ardglass and Kilkeel who sail all the way down there. That is fine; they have to go through a lot of the Irish Sea to get to the Celtic Sea. That is fair enough. As I said, once they catch it, they need a market to sell it to. That is a critical point. It is clear that a lot of the fishing industry is frustrated with the way in which the common fisheries policy operated. No one disputes that, but it is also true that we need to have a market to sell the fish to. A large part of the market for fish from Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK and, indeed, the island of Ireland, has been in other parts of the UK. Unless we have a comprehensive deal that includes fisheries, we are going to have a severe market access problem. Do Members have a strategy for us comprehensively changing the fish that we consume here, because a lot of the fish that is landed here is not popular in our domestic market?

I move now to the question of the joint fisheries statement and the NI zone, which the Minister talked about in his introduction. It would be good to get clarity on the role of the Assembly and DAERA in the development of that new joint fisheries statement. As the Bill stands, it is unclear how that will operate. Members have talked about the new opportunities for trawlers, but the new opportunities for trawlers from Ardglass, Kilkeel and Portavogie are a little bit smaller than those for trawlers fishing out of Peterhead or Fraserburgh. If these are new opportunities, be explicit about what they are and how the joint fisheries statement will deliver on them. As the Bill stands, it is unclear how that will operate. In part, to be blunt, that is because Northern Ireland has smaller territorial waters than Scotland, for example.

The fact of the matter is that the UK, including Northern Ireland, exports a large proportion of the fish that we catch. Indeed, we import the majority of what is consumed domestically. Between 2014 and 2016, the EU made up 94% of Northern Ireland's international fish exports and 82% of its international fish imports. In 2016, the Northern Ireland fishing industry sold around £12·8 million to the local market and £28 million — well over double — to the EU market. Those are hard facts when it comes to market access. I respect what Members have said about people's objections to the common fisheries policy, and, yes, there needs to be a legal replacement for it, but let us be clear about market access and how that works. Access to EU markets will be critical for our fishing industry, going forward, but, unfortunately, we have little clarity on that.

Members have talked about the importance of the negotiations between the UK and the EU. The Minister mentioned that when he talked about clause 16 and reciprocal access. He and I have talked about the protocol. It is fair to say that we feel slightly differently, to put it diplomatically, about the delivery of the Ireland protocol. First, I gently remind him that he is duty-bound to deliver on it. Secondly, given what he said about clause 16, I hope that he agrees that it would be in the interests of our fishing industry and, more broadly, our economy, if the UK and EU could agree a deal, and that that should be something that is deliverable upon, because that would make everyone's life much easier. However, unfortunately in relation to the Bill, from what we have seen from the UK Government's approach to the negotiations, delivering on the protocol and, more broadly, protecting Northern Ireland, we have much to fear.

In conclusion, I understand the necessity for bringing the LCM to the House and the need for something to replace the common fisheries policy, but I have significant concerns which have yet to be answered about the specifics in relation to much in the Bill and how it will affect our fishing industry in Northern Ireland.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the House, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The first item of business when we return will be questions to the Minister for the Economy. This debate will resume immediately after Question Time, and the first Member who is scheduled to speak is Steve Aiken.

The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 12.59 pm.

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

Oral Answers to Questions — Economy

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

Question 1 has been withdrawn, as has topical question 4.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

2. Ms Sugden asked the Minister for the Economy how she is identifying and supporting young people, not in employment, education or training (NEETs), that feel isolated as a consequence of the response to COVID-19. (AQO 765/17-22)

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

In today's uncertain times, this is an important question for us, as a legislative Assembly, to consider.

My Department provides a range of support to young people who are not in employment, education or training, often referred to as "NEET". My Department administers the Northern Ireland European social fund (ESF) programme, which includes 18 NEET projects with a value of over £33 million. The projects are specifically designed to support young people. Examples of the projects are wide-ranging across Northern Ireland. We have Bryson Charitable Group, Extern, GEMS, Include Youth, Job Directions, the South West College, Springboard, Stepping Stones NI, the Prince's Trust, Training for Women and YouthAction Northern Ireland, so it is really a very wide range of programmes that are supported through this part of my Department.

The Department for the Economy is also the Northern Ireland accountable Department for Peace4Youth, which aims to engage 7,400 young people who are disadvantaged, marginalised and not readily engaging with other programmes. The Careers Service provides all-age, all-ability careers guidance, with a priority focus on helping those vulnerable to social exclusion. Inevitably, the response to COVID-19 and the lockdown, in particular, has made it more difficult to deliver those vital services. However, the services and projects have adapted to continue to provide much-needed support throughout the crisis. In March, Peace4Youth projects swiftly moved to online delivery to continue to support young people. ESF projects also moved to remote working. Some are now back working in their usual premises, where social distancing allows. Since March, the Careers Service has made over 49,000 contacts with 16- to 18-year-olds to guide them in taking the next steps in their education, training or employment.

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

I call John O'Dowd.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Do you want to call Claire for a supplementary?

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

Oh, sorry. Excuse me.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

I appreciate the Minister's response. She talked about the European social fund: I have been contacted by a number of community and voluntary groups who are concerned about the future of that fund. If it is likely that that fund will no longer have a future, will her Department fund the shortfall, if it becomes an issue?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

That is indeed an important and, again, topical and timely question on the issue. The European social fund funds a range of programmes, not just for young people who are not in employment or training but as part of the Northern Ireland apprenticeship programme. Therefore, it is very important to us that the Executive collectively engage with the UK Government to ensure that our national Government understand that, in the replacement for that European social fund — the shared prosperity fund — Northern Ireland is not at a disadvantage and gains the same amount of funding from that shared prosperity funding as it does from structural funds as they come to Northern Ireland and, importantlyl, that we are able to set our own priorities and objectives for the funding as a devolved legislature with responsibility devolved in those areas. The lead Department for this is the Department of Finance. It has been working on this, and, of course, I will continue to liaise with it and with Departments in London to make sure that those views are known. Current ESF funding is secure until 31 March 2022.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Minister will be aware that, since 2007, despite increased investment in Invest NI, it has actually created fewer jobs year on year. Does the Minister agree that we need to hold what we have at the moment and that there should be increased investment in apprenticeships, youth services and our students, so that we create a future for the young people who have been so badly affected by COVID-19?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

It is an important question. I think that the House will agree that, through my actions as Minister for the Economy, we have invested significantly in apprenticeships, youth training and the skills agenda in Northern Ireland. That is not just important for holding what we have but for developing the economy of the future and the skills pipeline that will go into that. That is an important aspect. The Department has been proactive in looking not just at apprenticeships but at careers delivery and other short-term interventions that will help to build the Northern Ireland economy, build skills and engage our young people into the future.

I just want to focus for one second on one of those programmes, which has been very important, namely the assured skills academies that we have run. Those have been very successful in delivering proper training and jobs for young people in difficult circumstances. I refer to the Microsoft cybersecurity academy, which was completed in Northern Ireland on 12 June, delivered at the height of lockdown and delivered completely online. Of the 24 young people who engaged in that skills academy, 23 found employment out of it. Those long-term skills programmes and the ability to be flexible and match skills to labour market demand is really important.

With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will answer the other part of the Member's question. It is really important that, while we build our skills base and support companies in Northern Ireland, we recognise the importance of foreign direct investment in Northern Ireland. Since April, I have announced over 1,000 new jobs, even in the midst of incredibly difficult economic circumstances in Northern Ireland. Six hundred of those new jobs have been announced by North American and US companies. That shows the importance of those companies investing in Northern Ireland. I look forward to talking to the special envoy to Northern Ireland tomorrow and building the relationships that allow those skills and job pipelines to continue.

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

I just remind the Minister of the two-minute rule. If you require additional time, perhaps you would ask for it before you answer, please, Minister. Thank you.

Cara Hunter (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Is the Minister engaging with the Department of Education in order to deliver an effective strategy to deal with young people who are leaving school with low qualifications and at risk of unemployment?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Before the Assembly collapsed in earlier times, the Minister of Education and the Minister for the Economy were working together on a strategy for 14- to 19-year-olds to look at the pathways that young people take at that age, the choices that they make and how we can improve services for them. Very early on, before the impact of COVID in this mandate, I had been talking to the Department of Education on that issue. We have now re-engaged with that work stream. I would like, in conjunction with the Department of Education, to bring forward a strategy that allows young people at 14 to 19 years old not just to look at traditional paths but to look at alternative paths towards their career prospects. We will help all of our young people in progressing their career prospects. We are also talking about creating that digital spine for Northern Ireland. We will try to incorporate those skills for our young people, right the way through from primary school until they leave education, preparing them for the world of work and the economy of the future.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

The Prime Minister has just announced a scheme in England for adults without an A-level or equivalent qualification where they will have access to a fully funded college course with an emphasis on "skills valued by employers". Can the Minister assure adults in a similar position in this jurisdiction that they will not be disadvantaged?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I am extremely concerned about the 20% of the workforce who have no formal qualifications. It is an issue that the Assembly and the Executive will have to address in the long term. In the short term, we have been working with adults and with everyone, really, who has been affected by the impact of COVID on their employment. Our skills strategy division has been able to support 2,000 individuals impacted by COVID-19, helping them to achieve one of over 90 online fully accredited qualifications in key areas including digital, leadership, management and employability. A second phase of the programme will complete by March 2021. We hope that it will support a further 3,000 individuals, including those who have been furloughed or made redundant or who are availing of the self-employment scheme. It will include collaborative approaches from further education on placement and to support women to return and get training in information technology. That is work that the Department is already engaged in and fully cognisant of.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Minister, will you recognise the despair of my constituents, when you have recently told the House, in a previous answer, that you hope that the UK Government understand the value of EU funds that have been distributed in Northern Ireland? Surely, you and your party would not have dragged us out of the EU if you are only now conducting those negotiations with the UK Government.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I shall resist, just this once, the Brexit issues in order to focus on the really important issue of skills in the Northern Ireland economy. I have been proactively engaging with my counterparts in London on the issue of the European social fund and its replacement, the shared prosperity fund. I will further support the Finance Minister as he seeks a full replacement of those funds for Northern Ireland. It is absolutely important that we are able to progress these issues for the people of Northern Ireland, for the young people of Northern Ireland and particularly for the economy of the future of Northern Ireland.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

3. Mr Lunn asked the Minister for the Economy, given the short timescale before the end of the transition period and that Northern Ireland will only have access to trade deals as part of the United Kingdom, for an update on progress on the prospects for trading arrangements. (AQO 766/17-22)

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

During my time as Minister for the Economy, I have continued to work with our national Government to ensure that UK international trade policy works for the people of Northern Ireland. It has been my priority that Northern Ireland will be able to access transitioned EU trade deals and new UK trade agreements. I have had extensive engagement with the Minister of State in the Department for International Trade through the Ministerial Forum for Trade and via bilateral meetings on matters of interest to Northern Ireland.

I have sought assurances that Northern Ireland will be covered fully in the scope of trade agreements, that our industry will be protected from unfair practices and that our businesses can remain competitive, both in the UK internal market and globally, despite the complexities of the protocol.

From that perspective, it is critical to recognise that Great Britain is our most important market, accounting for almost £24 billion of trade in 2018. During the same period, trade with the EU, including the Republic of Ireland, amounted to £12·1 billion and trade with the rest of the world to £6·9 billion. In other words, we did more trade in the GB market than in all of the other markets added together. Therefore, it is very important that, when we are looking at international trade, we are also protecting our trade with our internal UK market.

In tandem, I have been encouraging the UK Government to pursue with vigour a comprehensive trade agreement with the European Union. I support the Government’s ambition to have an agreement that supports our trade with Europe and, through supply-chain activity, our trade via Europe that goes into international markets.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer. The figures for trade with the European Union and the rest of the world are still very significant, Minister, and we may need them even more when this thing is settled. Given the British Government's success in trashing our international reputation, as seen in the explicit statements from the United States, particularly from Mr Mulvaney, just yesterday, about the consequences of interfering with the Good Friday Agreement, how does the Minister assess the potential, for example, for a trading agreement with America?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

First of all, it is vital that Northern Ireland is able to trade within UK trade agreements on an equal basis to every other part of the United Kingdom. That, of course, is complicated by the protocol, and I fail to understand why many parties in the House rush headlong to demand a full implementation, no less, of a protocol that would potentially restrict trade within the UK's internal market. Therefore, while trade with the rest of the world, including the European Union and the Republic of Ireland, is vital, and I do not underestimate it or diminish it in any sense at all, it is of utter importance to Northern Ireland that trade within the UK's internal market is able to continue unencumbered by restrictions imposed by the Northern Ireland protocol. I think that is massively important.

It is also extremely important that we are able to trade with other international markets. Trade within the current EU free trade agreements that have been rolled over is worth £110 billion to the UK. We have some outstanding trade agreements with the EU that are very significant to Northern Ireland that have still not been renegotiated by the Government. They include agreements with Canada, Mexico, Turkey and Norway. Canada is our second largest rest of the world trading partner, with an estimated £632 million of trade in 2019.

In terms of the US trade deal, again, America is an extremely important market for Northern Ireland companies, and the fourth negotiation on the US trade deal took place between the 8 and 18 September, and —.

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

Minister, sorry to interrupt, but we have overshot by quite a bit. I thought you were finished with that.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Could I give just two more stats, which I think are very important? With your permission Mr Deputy Speaker.

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

Just very briefly, please.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Again, trade negotiations with Australia began again on 22 September, and we are looking forward to trade negotiations with New Zealand on 19 October.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her answers, and for her efforts in working with businesses during the COVID crisis. Invest NI has an important role in supporting businesses through this terrible crisis. What other support is available from Invest NI and the Department for the Economy to help struggling businesses to come through this ongoing crisis?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for his question. Over the course of the pandemic, my Department has administered £400 million in grant schemes and helped 30,000 businesses in Northern Ireland. That has not been perfect nor are we able to say that it covered the full scope of the business spectrum. However, that help has been extremely important in sustaining businesses and skills in a difficult time.

If we continue on the Brexit theme, Invest NI is offering Brexit preparation grants. I am glad that the Member raised this issue because we need to get the message out that a full toolkit of resources is available within Invest NI to help businesses to prepare for the end of the transition period. InterTradeIreland also has a significant level of interventions in place. I encourage Members to convey these messages to businesses so that they can get the help that they need in the circumstances that we find ourselves.

Rachel Woods (Green, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her answers so far. Can the Minister outline if she or her Department contributed to any response from the Executive to the UK Government's internal market White Paper consultation in June, especially in relation to future trading relationships and the NI protocol?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

We continue to engage with our partners in government and responded to the White Paper. While there are many views in the House on the Internal Market Bill, and I suspect that they would not all accord with my view, there are principles that we need to acknowledge and accept as being vital for Northern Ireland.

The Internal Market Bill looks at unfettered access in the case of a no-deal and the EU refuses to acknowledge GB as a third country. It is vital that Northern Ireland firms have unfettered access to the GB market.

Other issues are of equal importance in relation to access to our markets. We need our Government to tell us how, in conjunction with the Joint Committee, they are going to define goods at risk. That will be important in getting those goods from GB, our largest market, into Northern Ireland.

We also need, as a matter of great importance and urgency, the issue of a Northern Ireland qualifying good resolved. The Northern Ireland qualifying good, and some of the issues around that, would stop others from using the Republic of Ireland as a back door into the GB market, and, therefore, impacting on Northern Ireland firms' competitiveness in that market.

There are many issues to be resolved. We could talk about state aid, and the fact that Northern Ireland would be encumbered with EU state aid regulations while the rest of the United Kingdom would be free to make more-generous subsidies available for businesses if it were so inclined.

I want Northern Ireland to succeed —

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

Minister —

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

— and I want its economy to succeed.

Catherine Kelly (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

4. Ms C Kelly asked the Minister for the Economy to outline the impact of leaving the European Union will have on funding available for upskilling workers and apprenticeships. (AQO 767/17-22)

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

EU funding contributes to increasing the skills base of those currently in employment and future potential participants and part funds DFE apprenticeship programmes.

My Department currently receives £10·4 million per annum from the European social fund (ESF) to fund our Apprenticeships NI and higher level apprenticeship programmes. Any funding loss will restrict our ability to recruit new apprentices or fully see out the upskilling of existing apprentices on those programmes. In order to maintain the scale of those programmes, the shortfall in funding will need to be sourced and funded. That is currently being considered as part of my Department’s succession planning for provision post-EU exit.

The Department of Finance is leading the case for full replacement of EU funding in Northern Ireland. Given the amount of funding that historically came to my Department for economic development, energy, skills and apprenticeships, the Department has been liaising closely with Finance and relevant Westminster Ministers to ensure that our needs and priorities are reflected in those negotiations.

Catherine Kelly (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for her answer. The Minister recently made a bid for £22·6 million so that the European social fund money could continue to be provided from April 2022 to March 2023. She will be aware of how important that ESF funding is in tackling youth unemployment. With considerable numbers of young people now being made redundant, does the Minister accept that the loss of European funding will have a detrimental impact on support for young people, particularly with the loss of the European social fund?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

While it is important to acknowledge that the European social fund has done significant and some very good work in Northern Ireland around the subject that we were talking about earlier — those young people who are not in employment or training and in funding apprenticeships — we are currently engaged in negotiations with our national Government around the replacement for that funding, which is the shared prosperity fund. The parameters that the Finance Minister has set for that is that we should receive the same amount of funding from the shared prosperity fund as we currently do from the European social fund. With that, we are at common cause with our colleagues in Scotland and Wales.

After we have established broad frameworks for that shared prosperity fund, I would like to see the detail of that fund being administered, directed and guided by the needs of Northern Ireland and by this Assembly in exercising its functions under the devolved Administration solutions.

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

Very briefly, we can have a quick question from Pat Catney and a quick answer too, please.

Pat Catney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Lagan Valley)

Every job is vital. We all know that, and this House is aware of that. Those who go out and take risks in order to start businesses are risk takers, but, on top of that, we need training. I want a quick yes or no from the Minister. Has the Minister communicated those updates with the regional colleges? I am aware of businesses that have taken part in the scheme

[Inaudible]

on additional apprenticeships for those students so that they can find that employment? Is the Minister aware of the uptake in apprenticeships in the regional colleges —?

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

I did say, "Quick question".

[Laughter.]

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for his question. I am in constant communication with all our further education colleges, and I will continue to monitor the situation. The scheme will commence in November as furlough ends for young apprentices. We are encouraging employers to bring back young apprentices and to retain them right through to the completion of their apprenticeships.

We are also offering funding for employers who want to create new apprenticeships. This week, I launched the apprenticeship challenge fund for Northern Ireland, and the work of the further education colleges will be absolutely vital in that. After the scheme is formally launched in November, I will continue to monitor the progress of the scheme so that we can ensure that employers, businesses and colleges are able to work together.

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

That concludes the period for listed questions. We now move to topical questions.

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

T1. Mrs D Kelly asked the Minister for the Economy when the Assembly will have sight of a substantive economic recovery plan, with built-in resilience for the new normal and clear and measurable outcomes and targets. (AQT 441/17-22)

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for her question. She will be aware that in June I published my short- and medium-term recovery plan, 'Rebuilding a Stronger Economy'. It looked at not only the short-term but the medium-term issues that we will have to address. It also gave a vision for the future of the Northern Ireland economy. I want such an economy to take Northern Ireland into its second century and to look at new opportunities and the sectors in which we can do well — the digital sector, cybersecurity — and in which we are already a world leader. I want it not only to grab those opportunities for the new economy for Northern Ireland but to support our traditional firms and manufacturing base, and the values that we all hold very dear. That has been adopted as part of the Executive's recovery strategy. In the meantime, my Department and I are working on a strategy for the economy, which, we hope, will be ready in due course. I emphasise that I am not waiting for a strategy; I am taking the necessary steps to help the Northern Ireland economy in unprecedented circumstances.

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

In the new working normal, if you like, I wonder about the opportunities for individuals, firms and businesses to access agencies such as Invest NI to discuss those issues. What plans does the Minister have for easy access and easy business, and the role that councils might play?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I do not know whether the Member has seen my mailbox recently, but as a Member for Upper Bann as opposed to being the Economy Minister, I have agreed to meet the local economic development agency of the ABC council. I look forward to that meeting, to which I intend to bring representatives of Invest NI in order to ensure that information is readily available and to make the necessary links between government agencies or arm's-length agencies of the Department and councils.

I continue to work with councils on the city deals strategy for Northern Ireland. As part of our medium- to long-term recovery, that is a very exciting mechanism by which to introduce new and innovative ideas. We have £500 million of new funding for innovation in Northern Ireland, which is a significant amount for our economy. We now need to progress the city deals as part of that strategy. As a local Member, I will discuss that with the council.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

T2. Mr Givan asked the Minister for the Economy, given that she will know that some students at our universities are having to self-isolate because of COVID-19, for an update on the conversations that she has had with our universities about how those issues are being addressed and the students supported. (AQT 442/17-22)

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for his question, which is important and timely. Our student population needs a clear message, and we need to support students in the circumstances in which they find themselves. I understand that university representatives met Executive Office officials this morning, and I also spoke to the universities this morning. Later this week, I will speak to student leaders to take their views. I want a more holistic approach to the issue.

Again, I appeal to our student population, remembering that the vast and overwhelming bulk of our young people and students will be respectful of the regulations and respectful of one another, and I ask them to respect the regulations, practise good hand hygiene, keep to social distancing, wear masks and obey the rules around campus so that they can keep themselves, their friends and their families safe.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for that response and commend her for the work that she is doing and for engaging with the universities. In that engagement, can she continue to get assurances from those who run our universities that everything possible is being done to maximise the opportunity for our students to learn? Significant fees are being paid, there are accommodation costs and the implications of reduced face-to-face contact are diminishing the experience that students get at universities, and they are asking questions about value for money. Can she ensure that the authorities in our universities are doing everything possible to provide that education?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I assure the Member that I will continue to engage with the universities on that issue. I am acutely aware that many young people who have just gone to university for the first time, are living on their own and are struck with these kinds of situations will feel lonely and isolated, and we need to support our young students through what is a very difficult time.

I am also aware of the issues around the balance between online learning and face-to-face learning, and I think that the universities will have to work very hard to get this one right. Obviously, in some courses that have a more practical element, the universities will offer more face-to-face learning. However, I do not want our young people to have a poor experience at university. For many of us here who went to university, we look back at it with great fondness as a time in our lives when, as young people, we were pretty carefree and were able to do things. We are in unprecedented circumstances, and we want to support young people to learn and support universities to do the right thing by them.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

T3. Mr M Bradley asked the Minister for the Economy, in the light of the concerning reports about the spread of COVID-19 across Northern Ireland in recent weeks, what impact another lockdown would have on our economy. (AQT 443/17-22)

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for his question. It is extremely important. We are very concerned about the community transmission of COVID throughout our communities, and, of course, the health of our communities and of the people of Northern Ireland is of paramount importance to us, but it is equally important to say, here in the Chamber and with great clarity, that Northern Ireland simply cannot afford another lockdown.

If we think back to the provisions of the schemes in March, April and May and we look at the Chancellor's statement of last week, that will reinforce my view that, while we have to look after our health — that is absolutely vital — we also need to learn to work and live knowing that this virus is in our communities. Even the fear of another lockdown would impact on business confidence.

Therefore, again, I appeal to communities right across Northern Ireland to be careful, remember social distancing, remember good hand hygiene, look after one another, particularly the older and more vulnerable in our communities, and remember that, in order to keep our businesses going and to keep jobs and livelihoods in Northern Ireland, we have to do these things.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

Thank you very much, Minister, for that answer. Minister, we are faced with a trade-off between health and economic activity, and I fear that we will not know the full impact on our economy until the end of the current furlough arrangements. I urge the Minister to look at innovative ways in which to create job opportunities and employment as we eventually come out of furlough and restrictions, and to challenge Invest NI to widen its horizons with regard to investment across Northern Ireland.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Again, I thank the Member for his question. I am on record as saying that I think that, with the furlough scheme ending in October, there is potential for a further spike in redundancies. Over the last period, we have seen around 9,000 redundancies in Northern Ireland, 4,000 of which have already been confirmed. That situation could get worse. To keep our economy functioning, we must keep businesses open. To keep businesses open, we must obey the health advice and all of the regulations.

I am saddened that there are restrictions on the hospitality sector in Northern Ireland. I believe that the hospitality sector has acted responsibility and with good faith and has interacted with the Executive and particularly with me as the Minister for the Economy. Therefore, I want to see those restrictions lifted and lessened as much as we can. We all have it in our own power to do that. We need to exercise personal responsibility and obey the regulations. We also need to ensure that our economy and our businesses remain open and that the world knows that Northern Ireland is open for business.

With your permission to continue, Mr Speaker, I was really delighted to attend the Irish Open at the weekend and to see players from all over the world competing in Ballymena and to know that the message that Northern Ireland is open for business and can put on these events safely was going right across the world. That is an important message for us to get out to potential investors and those who would look to come to visit us.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

T5. Mr Newton asked the Minister for the Economy, after admitting that she had stolen his original question, which was about the Irish Open at Ballymena, whether she sees the potential for tourism and sport to work together for the future of the Northern Ireland economy, given that tourism is an essential, growing and significant part of the economy, with sport having played a great part in developing that offering. (AQT 445/17-22)

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for his question. From talking to members of the European Tour and to representatives of the Royal and Ancient who were in Ballymena for the Irish Open, I think that there is a really great future for that combination of tourism and sport to really excel in Northern Ireland. I look forward to Northern Ireland hosting more of these really big events. I think that it is a wonderful opportunity to showcase all that is good about Northern Ireland. My goodness, I am sure that we all saw that Billy O'Kane's cows became an internet sensation during the weekend.

On a serious note, it is really important that we sustain our tourism and hospitality industries right through these very difficult winter months and that, when we look at 2021, we will have new opportunities to invest and build on the tremendous work that tourism and hospitality does and the jobs that it provides in Northern Ireland.

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

You may ask a very brief supplementary question, Mr Newton.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the Minister's words. Can she elaborate on one or two events that she might expect to come on our radar in the future?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Of course, I have been talking to some of those big events. I am not going to make any announcements today, but I think that we have an interesting and exciting pipeline of events that will come to Northern Ireland. In speaking as an MLA for Upper Bann, I cannot resist saying that I am also hugely excited by the new 'Game of Thrones' experience that will be opening in my constituency, which has the potential to create jobs and many more tourists and prosperity.

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

Thank you for that. That concludes questions to the Minister for the Economy. Members should now take their ease while we rotate Ministers in the Chamber. Thank you.

Oral Answers to Questions — Education

Rachel Woods (Green, North Down)

1. Miss Woods asked the Minister of Education for his assessment of the use of single-use plastics in schools. (AQO 776/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for her question. While my Department and the Education Authority (EA) have taken action over a number of years to reduce the amount of single-use plastic in schools, the current pandemic has had two impacts: no development or progression of any further work has been possible; and it has led to a greater use of disposable products in order to minimise the risk of transmission.

The Education Authority recognises this issue and is conscious of the impact of single-use plastics in the school environment. The measures currently being taken under the Education Restart programme are, I stress, of a temporary and emergency nature. The resources deployed and decisions made in relation to school safety and reduction in the risk of infection are based on the latest ongoing and continuously updated advice from the Northern Ireland Public Health Agency (PHA) to minimise or eliminate the spread of COVID-19 between and within the home and school settings.

Rachel Woods (Green, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his answer. However, he will be aware of the increased plastic pollution that is arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. More face masks, gloves, plastic bottles and food packaging will end up in landfill or dumped in our rivers and seas, all of which will have a devastating impact on our environment, wildlife and marine life. Will the Minister outline what actions the Department will take to reduce the use of single-use plastics and promote the eco-friendly alternatives, given that there are so many?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

As I said, the position is that some action has been taken, and there is engagement with the EA and schools. There is also a role for all of us to play as individuals. There are complications. You mentioned face coverings, for example, and a limited amount can be done directly in connection with how they are disposed of. In the COVID situation, one of the drivers in the increased use of plastics — this is where there is a critical role for parents and families — is that plastics cannot be reused because of the risk of child to child cross-contamination. However, there is an opportunity. Let us take bottled water and its packaging as one example. I encourage parents who are supplying drinks for children to bring into school to use a single receptacle that can be used multiple times by one child. From that point of view, when it comes to what is done directly in schools, it is not always about what the individual does or risks through the multiple use of something; it is about the risk of cross-contamination through something being used by a number of people. Simple steps of that nature can be taken: parents can give their child a single container, and the child can drink what has been supplied in that container as well as reusing it when accessing water at school. I know that many Members and people in other walks of life bring a single container with them, for instance, so that, in an environmental way, they are able to reuse that product. It is about thinking in that intelligent way. Partnership is needed between what happens directly in schools and what parents are able to do themselves.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Further to the answer that the Minister gave to Miss Woods, specifically in relation to COVID, what advice, guidance or instruction will he give to schools to try to reduce the amount of single-use plastic in schools beyond the COVID pandemic?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

A lot of good work has been done already. The EA will continue to engage directly with schools. It is about that level of interaction. Schools are given a high level of autonomy as to what they do, but there has to be encouragement to find novel solutions. For example, the EA has used competitions, and we, as a Department, have worked with DAERA to highlight the use of plastic and try to reduce it. We want to get that buy-in. It is about schools themselves, or individual pupils through those competitions, taking actions to improve their own environment. The EA also put in place an incentive whereby, if schools can reduce the amount of waste that they produce, that can help to reduce their waste disposal costs. That will then feed directly into the budgets. Everybody knows the extent to which, even in normal times, school budgets tend to get stretched. If we can reduce those costs, we can get a win-win solution for schools.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

This is pretty appropriate given that my daughter Lily, who is six today, was re-elected onto her school's eco-council yesterday. Further to the Minister's answer to Miss Woods and the particular example that he used of reusable bottles, will the Minister give any consideration to funding schools to provide pupils with said reusable bottles?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

We will certainly look at that within any budgetary constraints. There is an onus on parents as well. Maybe I am slightly distracted by the nightmare vision of another generation of Durkans entering elected politics.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

2. Ms Dillon asked the Minister of Education to outline the number of education settings that have experienced positive COVID-19 cases. (AQO 777/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for her question. We are working with the PHA and the Education Authority to consider how best to provide the information in an accurate and timely way. The information that we have so far is that, over the last month or so, around 180 schools have made a direct enquiry to the PHA. However, that can be misleading because it is spread over a month. It is also the case that an enquiry could be simply about checking when somebody displays symptoms but there is no indication of a positive case. It can be something that is impacting on one pupil or member of staff, or it can be much more wider. So, the figures are potentially a little bit misleading.

We have figures that indicate the levels of school attendance. We are now able to gather those on a weekly basis, which gives us a tracker. Similarly, although it is taken on a slightly different time frame, we also have figures that relate to the number of teachers and education staff who are in. I will be happy to follow up on those issues but, in both cases, the figures suggest a very high level of school attendance. We obviously anticipate a dip given current circumstances. However, it does show that, in Northern Ireland — compared, for instance, to England and Wales, where the figures show that there has been quite a large number of absences — there has been both a very strong and welcome commitment from education staff, who want to be on the front line teaching children directly, and a very strong buy-in to and valuation of education from parents. A small number of children, because of clinical vulnerability, will not be in a position to attend school. However, the figures suggest a very high level of success in getting children directly into school following resumption.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I also thank him for coming to St Joseph's Primary School in Galbally in my constituency last week. They did some very good work with remote learning during lockdown. Potentially, there may be a lot more remote learning if bubbles are isolating or full schools have to close down. A lot of leeway was given to some schools that maybe did not perform as well as St Joseph's in Galbally did with the remote-learning process. We need assurance from the Minister that there will be equity across the board for young people in what they get from their school and in accessing remote learning. As we know, not every family has electronic devices, and some families have a large number of children and maybe only one electronic device.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

The Member raises a number of valid points. A lot of schools rose very successfully to the challenge of remote learning, but it was not uniform. It is difficult to enforce something that is completely uniform. Indeed, sometimes even the approach taken by individual teachers within a school will differ. Two pupils at the same school but in different classes may find that there is not absolute consistency throughout. It also highlights that, while a lot of very intelligent and innovative work was done, remote learning is effectively second best to direct classroom learning, as everybody in the system will concede. That is why the focus has to be on ensuring the maximum amount.

The Member mentioned devices. There has been procurement of devices. We want to find a way in which we can ensure that those are obtained, for instance, where some parents may be a bit shy or nervous about asking for a device.

There is another limitation. I am sure that the Member for Mid Ulster will know of this, as indeed will Members from parts of the west of the Province. Some work has been done on connectivity with BT, for instance, but there will be patches throughout Northern Ireland where, despite the best will in the world — you could have every device in the world — the internet connection is so poor that it does not lend itself to that. In that case, some schools have had to operate by way of paper packs. Again, that is probably one step removed.

There is also a need to ensure that groups are identified for the provision of particular support. For instance, yesterday, I met a group that deals and works with and provides support for children who are visually impaired. There are different challenges there. There will be particular challenges around a number of issues. However, the main aim must be to get the maximum number of children directly into class.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

I am sure that the Minister shares my concern about the temporary closure of St Comgall's Primary School in Bangor. Can he assure me that his departmental officials are engaging with the school and offering help and advice as required to ensure the continuing welfare of the staff and pupils?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

There has been that case and another case in Saul. In both cases, we will be working alongside the schools. It may be wrong to drill down too much into the detail of individual cases, but, as far as I am aware, both cases do not directly involve the children. In each case, more than one teacher has been directly involved. That has created an issue of staffing more so than an issue of teaching the children. We are working alongside those schools. I hope, in both cases, to see resumption of full school activity. Both schools are working with the Department and the Education Authority. As both are maintained schools, they are working closely alongside the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) as well. We want to get a resumption of those schools as quickly as possible, certainly before we reach the point of the 14 days. I am hopeful that that will be the case.

It is also the case that, as a result of this, a number of teachers were identified as "close contact". Close contact is clearly defined as principally those who have been within 2 metres for more than 15 minutes. In any school — there may be exceptional circumstances — that may create a situation where a group of individuals are impacted. In some cases, it can even move as far as a part or the whole of a class. It should not impact on the entire school, unless it is a very small one.

Sometimes those schools may take a precautionary measure following advice to, for instance, have a deep clean, which would require the vacancy. However, there should not really be a situation, except on only very rare occasions, where we see an entire school closed for 14 days. That would not really fall within the public health advice that has been given about close contact. We work with schools on their individual circumstances, and whatever is put in place, there will always be some exception that may require a wider solution.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

My question also relates to St Comgall's Primary School in Bangor. Our first thoughts are with those who have been diagnosed positive with COVID, and we hope that they have a speedy recovery.

I thank the Minister for the clarity that is being given today on the circumstances on this matter. What more can be done to improve communications in order to assuage the anxiety and concern amongst parents, pupils and staff about the situation so that the full 14-day closure can be avoided?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

Sometimes schools will need to take very quick decisions and instantaneous action, and that might mean taking an initial approach that is arguably more precautionary that may then, in the light of whenever things are looked at, be beyond what really is directly required. There is a need for that close coordination between EA, schools and PHA. I know that CCMS, for instance, will also be trying to give a level of reassurance. In the couple of cases that have arisen, the issues have been to do with keyholders and the chain of command. There have been instances where principals had to self-isolate not because they were diagnosed positive, to be fair, but because they were in close contact with somebody who was diagnosed positive.

It is about trying to minimise the level of disruption. It will be a very rare occasion that a large number of pupils will be in the position of having to self-isolate for 14 days. That will happen where there has been direct contact. One of the questions asked is if somebody has been told to self-isolate but has not been diagnosed positive, does their sibling, for instance, have to self-isolate? No, because that is one further step removed. It is about that precautionary measure for those who have had direct contact.

In the early days, there were sometimes different interpretations of that. It is understandable that schools will quite often take an overly cautious approach in the first instance. That is why we need to work directly where it arises in any school.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

3. Dr Aiken asked the Minister of Education whether any provisions have been made for pupils to take transfer tests in their primary school, in order to maintain COVID-19 bubbles. (AQO 778/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. As he will be aware, my Department does not play a direct role in the administration or operation of the transfer tests, including their location. However, I highlight that, although until 2016 there were memos from the Department saying that primary schools were not to be used for transfer tests, when changes were made in the last Administration, memos were sent out that indicated that there is no bar to prevent any primary school hosting the tests. That remains the position today. It is a matter for the test providers and individual schools. The current arrangements for holding the tests have been agreed between the test providers and the schools that use the results as part of their admissions criteria.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the test providers and host schools to ensure that appropriate safety and social-distancing measures are put in place in the test centres, wherever the tests are held, and that the Chief Medical Officer and Public Health Authority's advice is followed.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his comments so far. As a point of disclosure, I should say, as you are well aware, that I am a member of a board of governors, and, like another honourable Member here, I have two young daughters in school who are going through a similar process. However, you will be very glad to know that they have no intention whatsoever of ever going into politics, and thank goodness for that.

We are being asked time and time again about maintaining the bubbles and the bubbling principle in our primary schools. Bearing that in mind, I understand that the provision of the Association for Quality Education (AQE) test is not your specific responsibility, but can you indicate whether you think that this is the way that we should approach that matter and that doing it that way provides the impetus between the schools and the examination bodies to maintain the bubbles? That would be welcomed by all schools, all parents and, indeed, by children.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I would like to see a situation in which we develop to a point where there is common agreement on transfer, but I suspect that is unlikely. The ideal situation is that every child would be able to sit the test in their own primary school. Part of the problem is that the tests are provided by independent bodies, who therefore have control over that. I appreciate that Members have different views on the test, but if we are to do it on a fair and equitable basis it can only be done if we get full buy-in from primary schools. While there are difficulties and additional pressures on children because they are not doing it in their own primary school, it would be a less equitable position if some children were able to do it in their own primary school and others were not, because that does not create a level playing field.

Whatever people's views on the transfer test, it is largely a competitive process between those sitting the test because they are trying to obtain places in particular schools. If we ended up with a situation in which, for example, 50% of primary schools said they were happy to do it and 50% said they were not, a child sitting the test in their home primary school, and another sitting it in a different place would not provide a level playing field. We have to bear that in mind as well.

Karen Mullan (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Minister, following the release of today's Audit Office report calling for an urgent review of special educational needs, would you not be better directing your efforts to children with special education needs, rather than trying to facilitate this unregulated test during a health pandemic?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

Although I suspect it may come up and I may be able to make very brief comments at some stage on the Audit Office report, there is a restriction on what I can say directly about it. The report will be considered at a meeting of the PAC on, I think, 15 or 16 October, and the convention is that comment is not passed ahead of that.

I appreciate that the Member probably comes from a very different angle on selection and transfer tests than I do, but it is not simply an either/or situation. As the Minister, the Department and I will try to do our best to look after children with special educational needs, we will try to look after the broader issue of transfer, and we will look after children in terms of their general school career. There is a very wide spectrum of things that we need to do. It is not a question of concentration on one issue to the exclusion of another. Even for those transferring at P7, there will be those who will do the test and those who will not. Our role, particularly as a Department, will be to try to make sure that that transition and transfer, in what are still going to be very difficult days ahead because of COVID, are done smoothly and effectively. I do not see this as an either/or situation.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

In regard to transfer, will the Minister agree that the best long-term solution is to recommission the test as a Departmental test, and will he follow his heart and his head on that?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I am glad that the Member can look into both my heart and my head. It is a skill that I am sure he has developed over the years. I think there are two issues about getting agreement on transfer. First, if I as the Minister were simply to go on a solo run and say, "Here is a DE test", I suspect something like that would be very quickly called in by the Executive as a controversial issue.

Secondly, we also need to give people a level of long-term certainty. If we have a situation in which one particular action in terms of a state test is done by one Minister, and then a different Minister, with a very different view, simply cancels that, you would be throwing people between different situations.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

So Sinn Féin rules?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

Sorry, what was that?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

So Sinn Féin rules?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

No, the Member is saying that —.

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

Sorry, just a moment, Minister. If Members wish to ask questions they should rise. Please, no comments from a seated position.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

The Member says that, but we have a power-sharing situation. If, as I heard him say, Sinn Féin had its way, there is no doubt that they would simply have abolished academic selection and transfer tests completely, but the law enables those to take place. It is not a question of entire freedom of manoeuvre.

There is no point in somebody grandstanding on an issue, which then risks it simply being overturned at a later stage. I want to see a situation in which the two transfer test organisations come together and produce a single test. That is something that would ease the burden on parents and students. However, I am also realistic enough to know that getting agreement in the Chamber on selection is unlikely to happen.

Pat Catney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Lagan Valley)

4. Mr Catney asked the Minister of Education what measures he will put in place to support the mental health of pupils during the COVID-19 pandemic. (AQO 779/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

A range of measures is being delivered through the education restart well-being project in direct response to the COVID-19 pandemic to support the well-being of staff and pupils. Those include an Education Authority (EA) online portal of resources, which is available to schools with information on supporting learners, leaders and staff; the EA Youth Service "Youth Online" resource where children and young people can access information, advice and support; and a well-being helpline, facilitated by the Educational Psychology Service, which provides support to schools as they respond to a range of needs amongst their pupils.

Subject to business case approval, £5 million of education restart well-being project funding will also be allocated directly to schools very soon. By receiving their own allocation, schools will benefit from having the flexibility to use that money to provide health and well-being support for their pupils and staff and draw down on a range of programmes. I have also recently launched the Engage programme through which £11·2 million has been earmarked to enable all primary and post-primary schools to provide additional teaching support for pupils, particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The Member will be well aware that in dealing with that issue, there is funding for academic catch-up and for well-being, but in many ways in schools, those are inextricably linked. In addition to that specific COVID-19 support, my Department is also working collaboratively with the Department of Health, the Public Health Agency, the Health and Social Care Board, the EA and other Government Departments to develop a framework for children and young people’s emotional health and well-being in education. That is progressing well and we are working to complete the framework by December 2020.

Pat Catney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for that very comprehensive answer and I welcome the additional funding. However, given the impact that COVID has had on our children, how soon can that funding be allocated so that teachers, as first responders, are able to help as quickly as possible?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I expect it to be signed off very quickly. The business case has been made and the money is there and will be able to be applied. One of the initial elements, from an academic and from a well-being point of view, was that even if everything was ready to run from 1 September, that would probably not have been the most prudent way to spend the money anyway. There will need to be a certain level of individual assessment in schools of where children are. Indeed, it may well be that individual children in a particular class will have reacted differently to COVID, so we cannot just make natural assumptions.

There is no doubt that, as well as the academic catch-up that is needed, many children will have been adversely impacted and we will move to provide that level of support. We are conscious that, according to the business case, we will be able to allocate a specific amount of money directly to schools, which can then decide where the best interventions should be.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. I welcome the new and increased funding that he mentioned and the "joined-upness" that he has explained to the House around the issue at hand, which is hugely important and which is growing in our community. In order to ensure that that "joined-upness" works to its maximum, does he agree that it is important that the Department works not just with schools but with specialist community organisations such as Extern, Greater Shankill Alternatives and Integrated Services for Children and Young People's greater Shankill team in my area to allow young people who are working with those organisations to be reached?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I have already met those organisations and I am happy to meet others that provide direct, front-line support to schools, such as charities and other third-party agencies. As well as the £5 million that has been allocated to education restart, an additional £6·5 million will go into mental health and well-being in schools.

If we are to maximise the value that we get from that, we will need to look at the expertise that can be provided by third-party organisations. They can be part of a cocktail of measures to lever in additional resources. It is also about what is able to be delivered on the ground, because one size will not fit all. The response needed for a six-year-old in one location will be different from that for a 16-year-old in a different location, and, indeed, sometimes different responses will potentially be needed in a single class.

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

That concludes the period for listed questions. We now move to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

T1. Mr Lyttle asked the Minister of Education whether, following yet another profoundly concerning report, he will take the opportunity to apologise to children with special educational needs (SEN) and their families, who his Department and its arm’s-length bodies are systemically failing to support. (AQT 451/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

It is clearly the case that I am very sad to see any child being let down. I welcome the report because it shines a light on what needs to happen. Indeed, there will be movement fairly soon on the issue of the SEN framework. At the moment, I am restricted by procedure in dealing directly with the detail of the report or, at least, commenting directly on it. It is due to be discussed at a PAC hearing on 15 October, and the protocol is that there should be no comment on the detail of the report ahead of that, so that limits the response that I can give. Collectively, we need to make sure that, as we move forward, the best possible services are provided to all our children, particularly the most vulnerable and those with special educational needs.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

A key goal of the Department of Education is to support all children to achieve their potential. Does the Minister not accept that his Department has failed to achieve that goal and is failing children with special educational needs and their families across Northern Ireland?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

As I have indicated to the Member, I will have to wait until we get to the PAC hearing before I can discuss some of the findings in the report. I am not in a position to fully answer the Member, and I am sure that he knows that full well. In trying to advance the issue of special educational needs, a consultation will be launched very shortly on the SEN regulations and framework documents. Given the need for an additional level of support as we move ahead, that can make a change. Can we as a society do better in providing support for those with SEN? Yes, we can, but that may mean that all of us need to make some tough choices in connection with that.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

T2. Mr O'Dowd asked the Minister of Education to assure the House that we will follow a curriculum here, whether Shakespeare or Heaney, that enriches our young children from all sectors of society, especially because although schools have been reopened for about a month, they are still waiting for full clarification on changes to the curriculum and qualifications, which causes him concern that we are in danger of following the English curriculum, not least an idea of Michael Gove’s from many years ago that everybody should study Shakespeare, albeit that Shakespeare was OK, in that he sold a few plays and a few books, but we should not forget that we have Joyce, Wilde, Beckett, Behan and Heaney as examples of curriculum materials that our schools could be using. (AQT 452/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

To paraphrase Shakespeare, methinks the Member doth protest too much in relation to that.

[Laughter.]

We are in a position where the CCEA has drawn up advice on examinations and the curriculum, and there has been engagement on that this morning with, for instance, the trade union sector, so we are reaching a fairly close point. I think that, literally as we speak, a group of school principals as stakeholders are being consulted by our officials on what the CCEA has brought forward. That will enable a final position on the curriculum to be brought forward to me later on this week for either agreement, amendment or change. It is an issue that will move on very quickly. It is important that all actions taken be fully to the benefit of all pupils in Northern Ireland. That might mean that we can diverge at times, but we also have to make sure that there is a level of portability with our qualifications. The key element with any of our qualifications is to make sure that no student in Northern Ireland is disadvantaged. The curriculum will have to reflect some of the changed circumstances that are there, and I hope to be in a position where that becomes very clear very soon.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am in danger of misquoting, but I think that it was Beckett who said that education is the lighting of a fire, not the filling of a bucket. I welcome the fact that the Minister is hoping to use materials from across the board. We have our local curriculum that has served our pupils very well. Everything is open to revision and review, but it is important that you, as our Minister, deliver a curriculum that meets the needs of our children.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I do not disagree with the Member. Maybe we should end there before we start simply quoting literary sources at each other. We have a rich tapestry of literary sources from across various jurisdictions. With regard to the curriculum, the role of any Minister is to set the broad direction and set the parameters for examinations. For example, if there are opportunities to say that, given the current circumstances, there can be a particular relaxation to the way that the courses work to allow for the fact that we cannot expect every student to study the full content of what would have been there in normal years, given the level of disruption. I am also conscious of the detail. We have seen it happen, in various jurisdictions, with Ministers intervening to say, "You should be studying x or y," or a type of Big Brother quality in saying "So-and-so is a preferred writer" or "So-and-so is banned". We are not in the world of banning Boris Pasternak, for instance, as would have happened in the old Soviet Union. There also has to be professional judgement on the detail of what is in the curriculum. The Member did not try to do this when he was Minister. It is not really the role of the Minister to micromanage that but to give a broad opportunity and a wide range of options. The fact that our curriculum is less prescriptive sometimes than others works well in our benefit. You are right that, broadly speaking, the curriculum serves our pupils well in Northern Ireland.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

T3. Ms Bradshaw asked the Minister of Education, after thanking him for his letter outlining his Department’s engagement with St Joseph’s College in South Belfast about its campaign for a new build, whether the protocol for the selection of major works projects to proceed in planning financial year 2020-21 has been released or will the protocol from 2019-2020 be used. (AQT 453/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

The protocol gives a little bit of flexibility around the exact timing. When there is a new call for major works, I have indicated that that will happen during 2021. That is not prescriptive that it will happen before 1 April 2021, but it will happen during the calendar year of 2021. The sooner we can get that the better. I have indicated that I want to look at the protocol because, while there was an important merit in facilitating where amalgamations were taking place, it did leave others behind; St Joseph is a good example of that. I am sure that everyone can raise schools from their constituencies. One of the problems was that although a large number of schools scored points because of very poor and inadequate physical infrastructure, in some cases, they were overtaken by schools that got points for amalgamation. That is unfair. I have indicated on a number of occasions that I want to look at the protocol, particularly the scoring mechanism for amalgamations. Either it should not form part of a new call or, alternatively, perhaps its scope could be reduced.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you. Minister, you will be aware that in South Belfast, over the next few years, there will probably be about 800 to 1,000 new homes, primarily in the Castlereagh South area. Where are you around area planning for post-primary provision there?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

Broadly speaking, the area planning process is being stood up again. During the pandemic, we had to look at all aspects within the Department, particularly from a policy point of view and what had to happen immediately. There were also difficulties in simply moving ahead with processes because area planning, by its nature, quite often involves a wide range of consultation and meetings. That was not appropriate during the pandemic. While the pandemic is still very much with us, there is a desire to start to reboot area planning. The wider strategic area planning group is due to have its first reconvened meeting in late October.

It will try to look holistically at the needs of an overall area. That may well lead to development proposals, and those individual proposals, from a legal point of view, would need to be looked at separately by me. There is a limited extent to which I can prejudge particular areas, but it is clear that we need to ensure that what provision there is reflects the broader demographics and needs of young people in the area.

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

Mr Bradley is not in his place.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

T5. Mr Durkan asked the Minister of Education whether those schools that took the wise and brave decision to opt out of the transfer test this year, including St Columb’s College and Thornhill College in Foyle, will be required to go through the development proposal process. (AQT 455/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

As a result of correspondence that we have received, the Department has sought legal advice on whether that is necessary, and we are waiting for a final position on that.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am sure that we all look forward to seeing the outcome of that. Does the Minister recognise the potential chaos that the situation would cause for schools and the massive stress it could cause for children?