Northern Ireland Assembly, 24 November 2020

574 contributions from 54 members. The official report.

Ministerial Statement

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I have received notice from the Minister of Health that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that, in light of social distancing being observed by the parties, the Speaker's ruling that Members must be in the Chamber to hear a statement if they wish to ask a question has been relaxed. Members still have to make sure that their name is on the speaking list if they wish to be called, but they can do this by rising in their places as well as notifying the Business Office or the Speaker's Table directly. I remind Members to be concise in asking their questions. This is not a debate per se, and long introductions should not be entered into.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Mr Speaker, it is with deep regret that I inform the House of a further occurrence of serious concerns about the clinical practice of a hospital consultant notified to my Department by one of our health and social care trusts. The incident concerns the clinical practice of a urology consultant, Mr Aidan O’Brien, who retired from the Southern Trust earlier this year.

On 31 July 2020, the Southern Trust contacted my Department to report an early alert concerning the clinical practice of the consultant. The trust informed my Department that, on 7 June, it became aware of potential concerns regarding delays in the treatment of surgery patients who were under the care of the consultant urologist employed by the trust. The trust became aware that two out of 10 patients listed for surgery under the care of the consultant were not on the hospital’s patient administration system at that time. As a result of those potential patient safety concerns, an initial look-back exercise in relation to the consultant’s work was conducted to ascertain whether there were other areas of potential concern.

The initial look back, which considered cases over an 18-month period of the consultant's work in the Southern Trust from 1 January 2019 to 30 June 2020, concentrated on whether patients had had a stent inserted during a particular procedure and if the stent had been removed within the clinically recommended time frame. The initial look back identified concerns with 46 cases out of a total of 147 patients who had the procedure and were listed as being under the care of the consultant during the period addressed by the initial look-back exercise.

When my Department was contacted on 31 July, the trust confirmed that the following actions had already been taken: discussions with the GMC's employer liaison service had been conducted; the case had been discussed with NHS Resolution, which recommended restrictions of clinical practice; restrictions were put in place by the trust preventing the consultant from undertaking clinical work in the trust and denying him the access or ability to process patient information; the trust requested that the consultant voluntarily undertake to refrain from seeing any private patients at their home or any other setting and that he confirm the same in writing; and a preliminary discussion was undertaken with the Royal College of Surgeons' invited review service regarding the consultant's practice and the potential scope and scale of any further look-back exercise that may be required.

The trust also established a review group to assess the further findings of the initial look-back exercise and to explore the potential need for a further look-back exercise in the context of the emerging concerns. That group has been working diligently since August, and I am now in a position to inform the Assembly of its most recent findings. Whilst Mr O'Brien has worked in the Southern Trust for 28 years, in consultation with the Royal College of Surgeons, the review group has looked at the time frame from 1 January 2019 until 30 June 2020. During that time, 2,327 patients were under his care. The review group identified the most vulnerable group of urology patients in that cohort and concentrated on those patients initially.

There are areas of concern relating to elective and emergency activity; radiology, pathology and cytology results; patients whose cases were considered in multidisciplinary team meetings; oncology; and the safe prescribing of an anti-androgen drug outside established NICE guidance in the management of prostate cancer. Across those areas, to date, 1,159 patients' records have been reviewed, and 271 patients or families have been contacted by the trust. The group's work continues across those areas of concern. Further details of the various review strands are appended to the statement.

So far, nine cases have been identified that meet the threshold for a serious adverse incident (SAI) review, and all nine patients and/or their families have been contacted by the trust to inform them of the position of their respective cases. A further six cases are being reviewed in more detail to establish whether those patients have come to harm.

The consultant also had a significant amount of private practice. Much of that was carried out in private domestic premises and, therefore, sat outside the regulatory framework that requires the registration and external assurance of facilities in the independent sector in which clinicians may undertake private practice. That is also of significant concern to me, as many of those patients may be unknown to the Southern Trust or the wider Health and Social Care (HSC) system.

Following a recent media report about the developing situation, the trust has issued a statement and has advised patients that, if they are concerned about aspects of their urology care and require further advice, they should contact the Southern Trust by email or through its urology information phone line. That information line is available from Monday to Friday between 10.00 am and 3.00 pm, and the number is 0800 4148520.

I am sure that the House will agree that the issues identified by the trust's review group are of the gravest concern. The impact of the concerns will be felt most severely by the patients and families affected, and, unfortunately, we are only at the start of what is likely to become a long and detailed investigation of the matter. As Health Minister, I want first to unreservedly apologise to the patients and their families for any upset and distress that has been caused. I wish to reassure them that I will endeavour to ensure that they obtain appropriate treatment and support and the care that they need over the coming weeks and months.

I propose to take a number of actions to uncover how the situation developed over a number of years without any apparent action being taken by the trust to deal with the practice of the consultant before now. I need to determine quickly whether a further look-back exercise is required that might necessitate a significant review and recall of a larger group of patients, other than those identified to date, who require a review of their clinical care and treatment. In addition to that, given the large number of cases that have been identified as meeting the threshold for an SAI review, particular action will be required to ensure that matters relating to those patients and their care and treatment are dealt with in an effective and timely way.

I have therefore taken the following actions. First, I have established a urology assurance group, chaired by the permanent secretary of my Department, to provide external oversight of the various work streams arising from the initial look-back exercise initiated by the Southern Trust. Specifically, that group will review the progress of the initial look-back exercise; consider emerging strategic issues; commission and direct further work as necessary; monitor the impact on urology and related services in the Southern Trust; ensure coordination with other associated reviews or investigations; and oversee communication across all stakeholder groups, with patient care being the central focus throughout. I have published the terms of reference for the group alongside the statement. Secondly, the Royal College of Surgeons has been commissioned to carry out an independent review of a sample of the clinical cases included in the initial look-back exercise to determine whether a further, more extensive look-back or patient recall by the trust is required. Thirdly, in relation to the consultant's private patients who are not known to the Southern Trust, I have requested that Mr O'Brien's solicitors outline how he intends to provide a similar independent process to ensure that those private patients are alerted to issues arising and that their immediate healthcare needs are being met. While the Department has no explicit duty to take this particular matter forward, as part of our wider healthcare responsibilities, I want to do all that I can to safeguard patients who may have received care or treatment in a private capacity from the consultant.

The remaining issues to be addressed relate to the management of all past, present and future cases that would meet the threshold for an SAI review, as well as establishing why this happened and whether action could have been taken by the Southern Trust to identify and address the apparent deficiencies in the consultant’s clinical practice. Given the large number of cases already identified as meeting the threshold for an SAI review and my concerns that there may be more to come, a different and specific approach is required. The fourth action, therefore, that I intend to take is to establish a statutory public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. I believe that that is the best way to ensure that the full extent of the concerns is identified and for the patients and families affected to see that those and all relevant issues are pursued in a transparent and independent way. My officials are preparing the way to get the inquiry up and running as soon as possible. That will take some time, and I would expect that the respective families and patients will have the opportunity to influence the inquiry's terms of reference. I must also be mindful of the statutory duties placed on me to discuss the issues with the appointed chair in advance of establishing the inquiry. Further details will be provided in that regard when they are available.

Inevitably, this type of work leads to a range of statistics relating to patient numbers, records reviewed, patient contacts and so on. Members will know that, behind every statistic, there is a patient, a family and their story and experience. These types of exercise can cause upset, distress and anxiety.

A significant element in all this work, therefore, will be to communicate with and support patients and their families as much as possible in the coming weeks and months. To help with that, the Southern Trust is developing a patient support package to include any counselling and psychological support that is needed, alongside the provision of family liaison and related support services.

Members will be all too aware that these significant concerns come hard on the heels of the recall of neurology patients by the Belfast Trust, and I am sure that Members will be keen to see the outcomes of that inquiry in due course. I recently met patients and families affected by the neurology recall and reiterated my apology to them for how they had been let down by the Health and Social Care system. To address those cases, as Members will know, an independent inquiry was initiated by the Department. That inquiry was established in the absence of Ministers, when it was not possible to constitute the inquiry under the Inquiries Act. To date, the work of that independent inquiry has been largely unaffected by that non-statutory approach, and I take the opportunity to thank Brett Lockhart QC and his team for their immense efforts in recent months. However, to ensure that, in the closing stages of the neurology inquiry, Mr Lockhart and his team have timely and unfettered access to all relevant information, I also announce that I intend to convert the Independent Neurology Inquiry to a statutory public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. It is important to note that the inquiry team is at a very advanced stage of its evidence-gathering process, and I want to be clear that I do not intend this decision to add to or alter the work or timescales of the neurology inquiry team, nor do I expect to see changes in the way that evidence has been gathered or public access has been provided. That would not be in the interests of the patients and families affected. They have already waited too long for answers. My officials will be in contact with Mr Lockhart as soon as possible to ensure that the transition is as seamless as it can be.

The emerging situation in the Southern Trust causes me and my Department the gravest of concerns. While I remain convinced that the experience of patients who use our health service is overwhelmingly that of a safe and quality service, these incidents, regrettably, dent the confidence of service users. I fully acknowledge that, and I will do all that I can to ensure that lessons are learned to prevent situations such as these occurring again. I trust that Members will agree that what I have announced today constitutes robust and timely action in a deeply concerning situation. I commend my statement to the Assembly.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle, agus gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. Thank you, Minister, for coming today to make the statement. It is a detailed and concerning statement.

I note your reference to the neurology inquiry, and I welcome the fact that it has been translated into a public inquiry. There will be lessons there. I also welcome the fact that a public inquiry has been called into this issue. I also reference the O'Hara inquiry, which probably has information that will be of benefit in how we move forward with this.

Minister, I welcome the fact that you said, on 27 October, that you would make the statement, and I have met the Southern Trust on the issue. Will you provide us with an update on how the terms of reference for the assurance group were developed and especially whether any urology patient voices are involved at this point? Will you outline the timelines for that urology assurance group and the review by the Royal College of Surgeons?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Chair for his comments. I apologise for not being able to give him a personal briefing on this; there was an Executive meeting this morning.

On the terms of reference of the urology assurance group, as I said, the Department received the early alert from the Southern Trust in July 2020. By that stage, the trust had taken initial actions relating to the concerns, including the restriction of the consultant's clinical practice and access to patient information, notifying the GMC and discussing the matters with the Royal College of Surgeons' invited review service to understand the scope. Officials from my Department, the Health and Social Care Board (HSCB) and the Public Health Agency (PHA) have participated in weekly progress update calls with the trust since 10 October, summarising the current position and including the quantity of patient case notes that need to be reviewed and progress on the SAIs.

The object of the group is to review the progress of the initial scoping exercise; consider the emerging strategic issues; commission and direct further work as necessary; monitor the impact on urology and related services; ensure coordination with other associated reviews and investigations; and oversee communication across all stakeholder groups. As I said, detailed terms of reference and the membership of the group are attached to the statement and will be available to Members.

On the participation of patients, as we are in the early stages of the identification of a number of them, they have not been engaged yet, but they will be engaged in the terms of reference of the full inquiry, as my statement detailed.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his statement. This will no doubt cause a lot of concern for patients across the Southern Trust. I welcome the establishment of a public inquiry to ensure public confidence, and I reiterate my call to ensure that its chair is independent of the Southern Trust and, indeed, of all the health and social care trusts.

Does the Minister agree that there is a need to look back further and examine Dr O'Brien's entire 28 years at the Southern Trust and in private practice? The review group looked at the time between 1 January 2019 and 30 June 2020, so there is a need to examine his entire time at the Southern Trust. Will the Minister outline whether he anticipates any further disciplinary or police action in relation to Dr O'Brien's actions?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his comments. The chair will be appointed under the Inquiries Act and will, of course, be independent.

As I said in my statement, the first look back was from 1 January 2019 until 30 June 2020, and further look backs will be decided depending on what they find in that, what the urology review group bring forward and the references from the Royal College of Surgeons. That time frame will be looked at, and they will go as far back as necessary. It is important to instil as much confidence in patients as possible to ensure that they come forward, make contact using the number provided by the Southern Trust and seek the help and assistance that they need.

The outworkings of the inquiry with regard to Mr O'Brien will depend on the outworkings of the royal college and the inquiry itself; it is not for me to predetermine them.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the fact that the neurology inquiry and this inquiry will be public inquiries with statutory foundation.

The statement refers to significant work being carried out at home or in a non-clinical setting. Will the Minister detail how widespread that practice is? Is he concerned that that may be at variance with the clinical rules, guidelines and accountability that we have? To give people assurance, might the public inquiry investigate that type of practice?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

We do not have specific numbers for that, which is why we have been in contact with Mr O'Brien's solicitor to make sure that whatever provisions are put in place also apply to the private group of patients that he was seeing, sometimes in a domestic setting. As I said in my statement, the Southern Trust does not hold those records, so anyone who has seen Mr O'Brien in a private practice or in a domestic setting should come forward to the Southern Trust and seek assistance from that information helpline, which is now available from Monday to Friday, 10.00 am to 3.00 pm. The telephone number is 0800 414 8520.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement on these two rather distressing and concerning issues, and I welcome his intervention. Whilst noting the increased powers and scope that the neurology review will have following its conversion to a public inquiry, I ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that, to date, the review has not been impeded in its work and that this is instead a case of ensuring that its future work will continue unhindered.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

The basis and need for the neurology inquiry to be converted to a statutory public inquiry is primarily to ensure that the Independent Neurology Inquiry team has access to all relevant information to draw its conclusions and make recommendations to my Department and to support a timely outcome of the inquiry team's report. Even though the inquiry team is at a very advanced stage of its evidence-gathering process, I do not foresee the decision adversely impacting on its work or timescales. As the Member would expect, I consulted the Independent Neurology Inquiry chair in advance of my decision, and he was fully supportive. I know that the patients and families involved are eager to see the publication of the cohort to recall, and I can advise that I expect to make a statement addressing that publication in the near future.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his statement. He will know that some of us have been campaigning for a long time for this neurology inquiry. Those of us who received private political briefings from Hugo Mascie-Taylor and Brett Lockhart know that they wanted this, so I appreciate that we have got to this stage today.

The common factor in Muckamore, neurology, hyponatraemia, this and others is clinical governance. How many times will MLAs be brought to the Chamber to discuss breakdowns in clinical governance? Will the Minister look at a more Health and Social Care-wide process to improve that?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

It brings me no pleasure coming forward to make these statements; in fact, it distresses and upsets me that we find ourselves in the position that we have to make them. When I engaged with the neurology families, the most distressing piece that I heard was that they had lost trust in our health service. That is why I have moved, as the Member acknowledged, for a public inquiry in relation to Muckamore and urology and am now transferring neurology across to that as well to make sure that we get to the root cause of the problems so that we can correct them.

This is not just a recent manifestation that we have to address, but I hope and am sure that the inquiries will bring things to light so that we can really get to grips with what are — I will not go as far as to say that there are systemic failings in our health service, because it is not widespread — distressing incidents. There are many, many good people working across our Health and Social Care system who need support and need the structures to support them, but, when we find cases like this, we need to ensure that we find and bring to light all that went wrong and all that is needed to correct what went wrong, so that it does not happen again. In the outworkings of all the inquiries, there will be a strong thread of recommendations that, I hope, will leave our Health and Social Care system in a far better place from a clinical governance point of view.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement to the House this morning on yet another health blow to the public in Northern Ireland and much worry for the people who have been involved in these urology cases.

Can the Minister give a commitment that there will be timely and urgent engagement with the affected patients, given the frustration demonstrated in the past by neurology patients who felt that they were not involved or listened to in that malpractice scandal?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I give the Member that assurance. One thing that came to light when I met some of the neurology families and the charities was the frustration over communication. That is why I have asked the Patient and Client Council (PCC) to lead on the engagement. It was leading on the work that we did with the neurology families; it will now do similar work with urology patients and families to ensure that they are as fully embedded in the process as possible and kept up to date regularly with each step that is being taken. It is important that they know that the work that is being brought forward by the inquiries is there to support them as well as to identify what went wrong so that we can make sure that it does not happen again.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

This is probably one of the most disturbing and concerning health statements that I have heard in the Chamber in the 17 years that I have been an MLA. Not one but two public inquiries have been announced today. In my opinion, the reason for that is the culture in our health service. Our consultants have far too much power. The vast majority of our consultants are fine people who carry out healthcare and save lives daily, but the culture in the health service means that they have too much power. When someone has too much power, that person is not held to account.

I will give the Minister an example. Six months ago, I wrote to the same trust about a consultant. I made a formal complaint on behalf of the mother of a disabled adult. The consultant wrote back to me and told me that he was doing a fine job. He may well be doing a fine job, but it is not up to him to tell me that. He should have been investigated. Will the Minister agree with me that, until the culture changes and that power relationship between the trusts and consultants changes, we will be back here talking about another public inquiry into a different consultant at some stage?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his comments. Unfortunately, I recognise what he says. I stress, however, the point that he made about there being many fine consultants working across our Health and Social Care system. I want to be clear to the Member, the House and the public who are listening that there are very many good people working in our Health and Social Care system. I ask people to put their trust in them.

The relationship between trusts and consultants is a piece of work that will be brought to bear in the inquiries that I have announced today. Health Ministers before me have had the same struggle with that relationship and the same level of concern. It gives me no pleasure to announce two public inquiries on the same day. That indicates the concern that I have as Health Minister that things need to change. I am sure that that will be the outworking of all three inquiries that I have instigated and announced since taking over as Minister of Health 10 months ago.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Like others, I welcome the Minister's honesty in his statement and the detail in it. The Member opposite talked about a culture, but there is another culture among consultants, which is for private as well as public work. While the clinical side is referenced, the bit of the statement that worries me is where it states that two out of 10 patients were not on the patient administration system. At this stage, does the Minister know whether that has anything to do with the relationship between private work and trust work, or is there something wrong with the trust's administration itself? Will that be included in that inquiry's scope?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Again, that came to light when the trust became aware that two of the 10 patients who were listed for surgery with that consultant were not on the hospital's patient administration system at the time, so that will be included in the inquiry's scope. As the Member highlights, the concern then is the relationship between what was being done privately, often in domestic settings, and how that goes unregulated, unrecorded and unnoted. Unfortunately, that leaves us having to contact Mr O'Brien's solicitors to make sure that he brings forward any records or any patient details that he holds.

The reason why, today, I am calling on anybody who has been under the attention of Mr O'Brien in a private capacity to come forward to the Southern Trust is so that, through the terms of the inquiry, we can support them as well and make sure that they get whatever medical and psychological support they need and deserve, even having been under Mr O'Brien's private care.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his statement. As others said, what we face this morning raises serious concerns. Supporting governance is a key safeguard in the delivery of services. Can the Minister confirm whether annual appraisals were carried out for the individual involved? They are a way of identifying issues early on, so I am keen to hear whether they were completed in the lead-up to the issue.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for her point. I do not have that information with me, but I can get it and update the House when we have it.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome the public inquiry and declare an interest in that my grand-niece's late mother was one of Dr Watt's patients. Her mum is now part of the campaign to seek answers, and they will very much welcome the public inquiry.

In relation to Dr O'Brien, I must say that I have spoken to generations of nursing and medical staff and, indeed, patients of Dr O'Brien, who are shocked at this. He was held and continues to be held by many in the highest regard. Members have talked about the relationship between the trust and consultants. Is the Minister aware of and will the terms of reference look at events preceding the inquiry by the Southern Trust? Will the terms of reference include Mr O'Brien's grievance and legal action that, I believe, may be under way against the trust?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

If there is legal action, I cannot comment on it, as the Member will be aware. The terms of reference for the inquiry have yet to be finalised and will not be finalised until the chair has been appointed. However, there will be full engagement on how the terms of reference are drawn up to make sure that we get to the root cause of why this was allowed to happen and, indeed, why it happened.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I also thank him for his frank and honest answers and his decisive action in ordering a public inquiry. The Minister will know that this will cause deep concern to patients, past and present, in the urology service. Even this debate may cause them concern. Can the Minister give a commitment to patients in the Southern Trust that the urology service is safe and that they are receiving the appropriate treatment?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I will give that assurance, because one of the things that the Southern Trust has done is make sure that Mr O'Brien's patients are now being supported by other consultants and receiving the treatment and the updates that they need. As I have said before, anyone who has concerns about whether they fall into the scope of the review or, indeed, whether they were under Mr O'Brien's care, can phone that number to seek help, medical or psychological, should they require it. One of the outworkings of the neurology inquiry was an understanding of the necessity to provide support and care. We possibly failed to do that in neurology, but we want to make sure that we get it right in the urology inquiry, given the concerns that have been raised today.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

Like others, I thank the Minister for making his statement to the House today. I know that the thoughts of the Minister and of everyone in the House are with those patients today. I agree with Mr O'Dowd, on this occasion, that consultants have far too much power. They dictate to their employer where they will work, and that has to change. Given the length of Mr O'Brien's 28 years' service in the trust, were concerns raised about his actions prior to this? If not, does that not cause the Minister concern about those in the trust with responsibility, who, apparently, failed to pick up on this until late in the day?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

As I said, that will be the outworkings and some of the work that the inquiry team will look into, as well as how far back it goes and how many look-backs we need to have. As I said in my statement, the initial look-back was at the work completed between 1 January 2019 and 30 June 2020. The trust became aware only when two out of 10 patients listed for surgery under the care of the consultant were not on the hospital's patient administration system at that time. That came to light early this summer. The inquiry will pick up on a lot of that work and answer a lot of the Member's questions.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for bringing the statement to the House and for his answers. Can the Minister outline how this will affect urology services not only in the Southern Trust but across the North? As was outlined, we have delays in normal circumstances, but, in the current circumstances of COVID, we have further delays. The dent in confidence that was alluded to in doctors and urology services may lead to some people not bringing themselves forward for services? What impact will that have? Those patients will have to go to other consultants now.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

The Southern Trust will work to make sure that any of Mr O'Brien's patients who need follow-up assessments or interviews, even in regard to work completed by Mr O'Brien, will be seen by other consultants in the urology team.

The Member is right to raise a concern about the pressures that our urology service is already under. Like many of our health services, it already has vacancies in posts, so it will put additional strain on that service. Should patients be assigned or designated to go to a urology service, I encourage them to take up that offer because, as has been said, there are many good clinicians still working in our health service across Northern Ireland, and they are there to provide the best health and social care that they can.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Cuirim fáilte roimh ráiteas an Aire. I welcome the Minister's statement. The Minister may have partly answered in his statement how he will contact patients, including those who were private, who were seen pre-January 2019. What extra supports can be put in place for those patients and their families, and how do we instil confidence back into the system?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Putting that trust and confidence back into the system is the challenge that I have and that we all have. We have good people working in the system. We have a good health system, and I ask Members to encourage people not to lose faith in all the good people working across our health and social care sector. The Southern Trust has led in providing support mechanisms, and I reiterate that there is a telephone number for people, should they be seeking support. The number is in the statement, and it has been made available.

The concern that we have is the number of people who were seen in private practice. Much of that work was carried out in private domestic services. Therefore, it sat outside the regulatory framework, which requires the registration of external assurances of facilities in the independent sector. That side of the work concerns me as well, and that is why we have been in contact with Mr O'Brien's solicitor to make sure that we get full access and that we provide as much support to the patients he saw privately as we do for those known to the Health and Social Care sector. However, patients seen privately by Mr O'Brien can seek that reassurance and support from the Southern Trust. They will be treated equitably with Southern Trust patients.

Justin McNulty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his statement. This will be a difficult day for patients, for the Southern Trust and, indeed, for Mr O'Brien. There are conflicting narratives here, Minister. Many whom I have spoken to, including former patients and colleagues, speak very highly of Mr O'Brien, and that is why this statement is such a shock. I welcome the setting up of the inquiry, as it will ensure accountability, fairness and transparency for all involved.

The Minister stated that Mr O'Brien treated a minimum of 2,327 patients through the trust's services, and then there are private patients, as well. The Minister then advised that 271 patients have been contacted. Minister, I am sure that you will recognise that, after today, many more patients and their families will be concerned. Given that it has been identified that many patients have not been impacted, will the Minister undertake to ensure that those patients for whom concerns have been identified will be contacted with the appropriate care and support as quickly and expeditiously as possible?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

The Member talks about numbers. As I said in my statement, it is important that, when we get into a situation and a process such as this, which is about the numbers of people who are being seen, the records being looked at and all the rest of it, we do not forget that, behind each of those numbers, there is an individual and a family, as well. It is important that we do not just try to look at this in those pure number terms.

With regard to the number that the Member referenced, the more than 2,000 patients were the patients who were in his care during the initial 18-month look-back exercise, which was conducted for the period between January 2019 and June 2020. Of those, 1,159 patient records were initially reviewed and 271 patients were contacted, and, out of that, there was an identification that nine serious adverse incidents would be initiated. That is why I have decided to establish the public inquiry, under the Inquiries Act 2005, to address those concerns.

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

At the outset, I declare an interest for the part of the statement that refers to the neurology recall, as my husband is one of the patients who have been recalled.

Turning to the urology statement and its contents, I thank the Minister for the assurance that he has given of the current safety in the Southern Trust. However, I refer the Minister to the part of the statement where he says:

"two out of 10 patients listed for surgery under the care of the consultant were not on the hospital’s patient administration system at that time."

Will the Minister elaborate on that? Is a consultant personally and solely responsible for ensuring the administration duty of placing a patient on that list? Furthermore, will he give an assurance that the terms of reference of any investigation will be to look at processes such as this and to compare them with how they are operating in other trust areas? Thank you.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I give the Member the commitment that the terms of reference will be as full and complete as is necessary. I am sure that the trust's becoming aware that two out of those 10 patients who were listed for surgery under the care of the consultant were not on the hospital's patient administration system at that time will also be a major part of the inquiry.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Members, that concludes questions on the statement. Please take your ease for a moment or two.

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

Private Members' Business

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I call Mr Jim Allister to move the Bill.

Moved. — [Mr Allister.]

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are three groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn. The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1 to 9 and opposition to clause 2 stand part, which deal with the appointment, conduct and management of special advisers. The second debate will be on amendment Nos 10 to 12, 21 to 23 and 25, which deal with accountability to the Assembly. It should be noted that amendment No 25 is consequential to amendment No 21. The third debate will be on amendment Nos 13 to 20, 24 and 26 and opposition to clause 7 stand part, which deal with administrative reform and governance. It should be noted that amendment No 26 is consequential to amendment No 15.

I remind Members who intend to speak that, during the debates on the three groups of amendments, they should address all the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate in each group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Question on stand part will be taken at appropriate times in the Bill. If that is clear, we will proceed.

Clause 1 (Amendment of the Civil Service (Special Advisers) Act (Northern Ireland) 2013)

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

We now come to the first group of amendments — the appointment, conduct and management of special advisers — for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 9 and the opposition to clause 2 stand part.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I beg to move amendment No 1:

In page 1, line 7, after "(2)" insert "(b)".

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In page 1, line 12, leave out "involvement or". — [Mr Allister.]

No 3: In page 1, line 13, before "A minister" insert "Subject to section 3A". — [Mr Allister.]

No 4: In page 1, line 14, at end insert

"(3A) In section 8 (Code for appointments), after subsection (1) insert the words:

'(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the code must provide that the appointing minister must -

(a) create a job description and person specification for the post,

(b) set out the requirements to be met by a successful applicant,

(c) achieve a candidate pool from which the minister shall select on sustainable and lawful grounds, and

(d) complete and the department retain documentation associated with the above processes, including recording the minister’s reasons for the selection made.'". — [Mr Allister.]

No 5: In page 2, line 9, after "adviser" insert "by reason of the holding of that post". — [Mr Allister.]

No 6: In page 2, line 12, leave out "him" and insert "the special adviser". — [Mr Allister.]

No 7: New Clause

Before clause 2 insert

"Repeal of the Civil Service Commissioners (Amendment) Order in Council 2007

A2. The Civil Service Commissioners (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order in Council 2007 is repealed.". — [Mr Allister.]

No 8: In clause 4, page 2, line 28, after "Office" insert "under the provisions of the Civil Service Commissioners (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order in Council 2007". — [Mr Allister.]

No 9: In clause 4, page 2, line 33, leave out subsection (3). — [Mr Allister.]

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I will proceed to speak to amendment No 1 and the other amendments in group 1. It is no part of my ambition to beat the record of last Tuesday and to be here at 2.15 am, but let us see how we go.

I begin by thanking the staff, including the Bill Office staff and the Committee staff, who, behind the scenes, do a great deal of work and a give a great amount of invaluable guidance and help. I also thank the Business Office staff and the Speaker's Office staff for their roles in progressing matters to this point. It all fits together in the necessary workings of bringing forward a private Member’s Bill. I also thank the witnesses who came to the Committee and gave of their time and knowledge and afforded us useful insights into much pertaining to these matters. I thank the Committee as a whole for its thoughtful interrogation of the Bill. Having listened to the points made, most particularly in Committee but also outside, I believe that the amendments provide the opportunity for a better Bill than was first drafted.

That, of course, is the whole purpose of a thoroughgoing Committee Stage. I am grateful for that.

It will be noted that not all parties participated as fulsomely as others. Sinn Féin, as was its perfect entitlement, took a different approach. There was, essentially, non-engagement with many of the issues and an unaltered declaration from the beginning that, come what may, it was opposed to each and every clause of the Bill. That is, indeed, its entitlement. It was disappointing to note that the Bill was being judged on the identity of the sponsor rather than on its content. Indeed, Mr O'Dowd made it plain in the Second Stage debate that it was not for me to bring forward a Bill such as this. I encountered that again with Mr Pat Sheehan in the Executive Committee, where there was an attitude that the Bill should be rejected, essentially, because of its authorship, not its content.

The other major party in the Executive had probably greater reason to be stand-offish. It is, undoubtedly, a difficult topic, arising as it does from RHI and all the misdemeanours that that revealed. However, it is to the credit of the DUP that it took a more mature attitude to the Bill. Similar to the other parties on the Committee — the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists; unfortunately, the Alliance Party is not on that Committee — it took an engaging and mature attitude to issues, which cannot have been easy, in some respects.

This is not a green and orange issue. There is nothing about the Bill that is of that nature. It is not about whether you are pro- or anti-Belfast Agreement, as one Sinn Féin Member sought to suggest to me. It is not about attacking these institutions. The House needs no reminder of my view of these institutions, but the Bill is not an assault on the institutions. It is not about attacking the functions of spads. I know that spads have an important and necessary function in government. I am not disputing that; I accept it entirely. It is about bettering government. It is about bringing probity and principle where those have been demonstrated to be deficient. It is, therefore, about improving the standards and principles of the functioning of government, as the title of the Bill suggests.

As we go through today, the single most significant ideological, perhaps, and political issue that Members will have to address is whether codes of conduct are sufficient to deal with the issues that have been thrown up or whether we need legislation. That will be a fundamental dividing line in the debate. It is a dividing line to be drawn and a decision to be taken in light of not just the reality of what we need and what we do not but of the perception of the public. Stormont may be something of a bubble. RHI may have been eclipsed in the public focus by the pandemic. However, the issues that arose are such that the House cannot gloss over them. It needs to address and grasp hold of them.

The primary Sinn Féin approach seems to be that codes are enough. Indeed, there is a certain irony there, in that we have codes only because of the Civil Service (Special Advisers) Act (Northern Ireland) 2013, sections 7 and 8 of which brought in codes of conduct and appointment for special advisers. Yet the party that, today, will tell us that codes are enough was the very party that voted against even having those codes in the 2013 Act. Such was the party's antipathy to the restraint even of codes that it voted against it. We will hear from the Minister today. I cannot accuse him of voting against it because, in 2013, he was furloughed to Westminster. He was not here, but his party vigorously, vehemently opposed the very idea of codes. Yet, today, that party tells us that codes are enough.

Are codes enough? What happened in RHI is the answer. Codes, patently, are not enough. What RHI showed was that the codes were systematically breached. I remind Members that the codes that existed during RHI required confidentiality from spads. Paragraph 24 of their terms and conditions was there, writ large, and it required integrity. Paragraph 5 of the code of conduct also underscored the need for confidentiality. It was all there in black and white: confidentiality and integrity were required by the codes. Did it work? Anyone who recalls some of the evidence, such as the sharing of official information with family members, will readily reach the conclusion that codes, demonstrably, were not enough. As an adequate control mechanism, codes have demonstrably failed.

Then, of course, we are given the assurance that things will be different now. Will they? Without the certainty of legislation, I seriously doubt that. Why would anyone who is determined to do the right thing fear legislation? Maybe the answer lies in a quite amazing letter that the Finance Minister wrote to the Finance Committee during its scrutiny of this Bill. On 27 April, the Finance Minister wrote to Dr Aiken, the Chair, setting forth his views on the Bill. Let me read a sentence or two from that letter. This is what it says in support of codes:

"But it is also important that those rules are amenable to interpretation and the application of judgement, and that the rules can be developed and enhanced as circumstances require."

We have just passed through RHI, with all its ugly sides and all its plaintive rebuke of how things were being done, and the Finance Minister writes to the Committee and says, "Codes are enough. We do not want legislation, because we want something that is amenable to interpretation. We want something that allows the application of judgement. We want something that can be developed and enhanced as circumstances require." Why would you want a provision in legislation that says you shall not breach confidentiality and you shall behave with integrity — why would we want that to be amenable to interpretation? I say that the House should not want such to be amenable to interpretation.

Indeed, I was sitting in the House waiting for the debate to start, and Mr O'Dowd gave me an excellent line. When the Health Minister was talking about his inquiry into the urology services — and I say this in the context of the Finance Minister wanting to have the power to decide on interpretation — Mr O'Dowd said:

"When someone has too much power, that person is not held to account".

Exactly.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Certainly.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

There are accountability mechanisms in place here. We are actually sitting in one at the minute: it is the Assembly. The Assembly holds Ministers and their Departments to account.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Can the Member make his comments through the Chair so that the microphone can pick them up?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Sorry.

We also have our Committees. Our Committees hold Ministers to account, their Departments to account and their officials to account. So there is not an absence of accountability. No one is arguing for an absence of accountability. However, we are arguing that the measures the Member is taking are unnecessary and unwieldy.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I could understand the Member's contribution if we had not had RHI. RHI is the reason why it is demonstrably clear that codes are not enough. I really do think that there is an element of delusion if Members think that codes can do it.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Sure.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member agree with me that the Member who just made an intervention and who talked about democratic accountability was the very Member, at the Second Stage of this Bill, who did not want or see fit that private Members should bring legislation such as this?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Yes. I should make the point that it is not an either/or choice. It is not that legislation takes everything that could be in a code and legislates for it. The legislation sets the basic parameters. It still —.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

In a moment.

It still admits a role for codes. Sections 7 and 8 of the 2013 Act are explicit. They lay down some minimum requirements in codes and leave the rest to the discretion of the Department. So it is not that you have to choose codes or legislation. The question is: are there some matters where codes have failed and you need to step it up a gear and put it into legislation? That is the contention behind this Bill.

I will give way.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Will the Member accept that Justice Coghlin conducted a very fulsome inquiry into this issue that most people thought was conducted very thoroughly and came up with recommendations, none of which required legislation?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I understand that, and I have read, obviously, the entirety of the RHI report. Lord Justice Coghlin is not the legislator. This Assembly is the legislator, and it is for this House to decide, with the useful guidance and assistance that came out of the RHI report, how it is going to handle that, and whether, in the circumstances where things have failed in the past, we now do need legislation.

Let me be clear. Legislation is binding, in circumstances in which codes are, in the Minister's words, "amenable to interpretation". I told the House at Second Stage about the declaration by Lord Bingham in a case involving a code of practice issued under the Mental Health Act in England. Lord Bingham summed it up very precisely. He said:

"It is in my view plain that the Code does not have the binding effect which a statutory provision or a statutory instrument would have."

There you have it. It is about whether MLAs want the changes arising from the RHI inquiry report to be binding or not. When MLAs vote later today, let this be the compelling thought, "As I express my vote, do I want the changes that need to be made to be binding or not?". That is the defining issue. It is about our durability and the seriousness of our intent on the issue, and it is also a confidence-building measure to the wider public. I do not need to tell anyone in the House that this place suffers from public perception issues. I put it as gently as I can.

The Stormont bubble is not the jury in this matter. It is the wider public who are the jury and who will judge today whether we took the steps that they would expect us to take or whether we bottled it in our cocoon by saying, "We can look after all of this by mere codes that are amenable to what suits our interpretation". That is the defining issue. I have already said that codes and legislation can, perfectly happily, coexist. That is the infrastructure that I am inviting the House today to embrace.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to hear that I am coming to each of the amendments in turn now, having made those preliminary remarks. Amendment No 1 is purely technical, and I hope that we can all have some agreement on that. It is about tidying up a typographical error in the Bill.

Amendment Nos 2 and 3 are about the discipline of spads. My starting point is this: special advisers, so long as they hold office, are civil servants. Temporary civil servants, yes, but civil servants. They are beneficiaries of all the benefits, pension and salary of being civil servants, but, unlike the civil servants with whom they work, they are not subject to the discipline of the Civil Service. That is what I want to correct, because we have had experience in this place of how the discipline of spads worked or did not work. We had an incident way back relating to Red Sky. We had a Mr Stephen Brimstone, a special adviser. He, because of his conduct, was recommended by the Finance Department for formal disciplinary investigation. The Department asked Finance to look at the situation. The Department of Finance and Personnel, as it then was, independently recommended that he should be subject to a formal disciplinary investigation.

Did it happen? No. Why did it not happen? His Minister overrode it. He said, "We will have none of that and no investigation".

The Social Development Committee of the time, of which our current Speaker was the Chair and I was a member, did a report. One of the recommendations of that report was a change to stop the Minister aborting a disciplinary investigation. That was a recommendation in the report brought to the House. Today, I am inviting the House to carry that through by subjecting a civil servant who is a special adviser to the same disciplinary procedures as the Civil Service of which he is a part.

We have to remember that the Minister of Finance's view, which was expressed to the Committee, was that the revised ministerial code makes a Minister responsible for, and accountable for, the behaviour of their special advisers. If a Minister does not take action in response to a breach of the special advisers' code, they can be reported and investigated for a breach of the ministerial code. I do not think that I do any injustice to what the Minister's contention to the Committee was.

The question is this: is that sufficient? I have to say to the House that neither presentationally nor practically does it resolve the problem, because the problem is this: the Minister hand-picks his spad, who acts as a civil servant but who is immune from Civil Service discipline and instead can be held to account by the one who chose him in the first place. One has to ask how many Ministers have ever been held accountable for a breach of the ministerial code.

We are told that you take care of this by putting the Minister in charge and that if he does not act he breaches the ministerial code. That is the theory. The practical question that I have is this: how many Ministers have ever been held accountable for a breach of the ministerial code? In that system, of course, any punishment for the errant spad lies with the one who chose him. It is as farcical as it appears.

We come back to the fundamental point: if a spad has all the benefits of a civil servant, why should he not be held accountable to the Civil Service code of conduct and the Civil Service provisions in respect of discipline? The point is made to me that the present Civil Service codes do not lend themselves to that. With respect, that is not an answer. It is up to the head of the Civil Service to adjust the codes to deal with the spad situation. It is not for me and it is not for this Bill. If this principle is passed, it is for the Civil Service to accommodate it.

I have heard it said that, "Oh, but we are taking away the Minister's entire accountability in respect of his spad".

No, I am not, because clause 1(3) recommends that:

"A minister who appoints a special adviser is" —

remains —

"responsible for their management, conduct and adherence to the code of conduct."

All that I am taking away from him is the right to interfere in the disciplinary process. He can still be involved and make the reference, and it might still come back to him, but he cannot interfere. That is the principle that lies behind amendment Nos 2 and 3. It lies there because of the experience of such interference in the past.

Amendment Nos 2 and 3 are worthy of the support of the House because they fill a gaping gap. It is farcical that a hand-picked spad is only ever subject to the whim and discipline of the person who appointed him, even though, as a civil servant, he could drive a coach and horses through their code and only the Minister can do anything about it. That cannot be right. That is why I am saying that we should make them subject to the Civil Service code of conduct and the disciplinary process.

Amendment No 4 deals with the issue of how a spad is appointed. The Department effectively double-crossed Lord Justice Coghlin on that issue. In his report, Lord Justice Coghlin was aghast at the breaches of the then code on the appointment of spads. Let me remind the House what the old code said. It required a job description. There is no surprise there, because we are filling a publicly paid post, so, surely, there should be a job description. The old code also required criteria by which the selection would be made, a candidate profile and the Minister to document the process. You will recall what Lord Justice Coghlin had to say about how some of that matter was breached. I go to volume 3, page 166, of his report. His findings state that:

"It is clear from the evidence received by the Inquiry that both of the two main parties in the Executive, the DUP and Sinn Féin, breached the spirit and/or provisions of the 2013 Act passed by the Assembly and the mandatory codes issued by DFP in accordance with sections 7 and 8 of that Act in one way or another. At the time of Mr Cairns’ appointment as SpAd to Minister Bell in DETI in 2015, some two years after the passage of the 2013 Act and the mandatory appointment code, the procedure was not, as required by the appointment code, by way of a competitive selection from a candidate pool set up after a trawl by Minister Bell, but was instead conducted by the DUP through its then leader, and the then First Minister, Mr Robinson. Minister Bell accepted that the practice adopted in signing the letter of appointment effectively 'camouflaged' the complete failure to comply with the appointment code."

He goes on to say that:

"The Inquiry finds that the practices adopted by the DUP and Sinn Féin in centralising the appointment, control, and management of SpAds effectively frustrated that purpose of the democratically enacted legislation."

Further to that, he states that:

"The realpolitik observed by some Ministers in these circumstances appears to have produced a number of advisers with wide powers and influence who were appointed and operated in practice outside the code of conduct for Special Advisers. Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind that SpAds were civil servants, albeit of a special type, and, as such, there is a public interest in ensuring that the appointment process was operated, and was seen to operate, in accordance with the relevant codes."

What did Minister Murphy do with those findings? Minister Murphy brought a code that had been found to have been breached multiple times in all those aspects — about candidate pool, candidate profile, setting criteria, documenting the process — and rewrote the code of appointment to simply strip all that out. So, the answer to the criticism that the codes had not been followed was simply to take out of the codes that which had not been followed. How perverse is that? Recommendation 41 of Lord Justice Coghlin was:

"that there should be robust compliance".

Mr Murphy's response was, "Just strip it out". So, you deal with the behaviour that was excoriated simply by making that excoriated behaviour no longer a breach. That is not good government. That is what amendment No 4 is all about. Amendment No 4 is about putting it back in because the Department could not be trusted to just work it on codes. Sections 7 and 8 of the 2013 Act gave them wide discretion. The code that was produced back then required a candidate pool, selection process, keeping a note — all the things that are in amendment No 4. We then discovered that Executive parties could not be trusted to do that either in RHI, where they simply breached it, or post-RHI, when they stripped it out. The purpose of amendment No 4 is to put it back in but, this time, to put it in legislation.

Let me quote some of the things that Felicity Huston, the former Commissioner for Public Appointments, told the Committee. She gave of her time. She came and gave evidence, with her vast experience of the basic requirements in public appointments. She said of Mr Murphy's code:

"This Code - published to the surprise of many before Sir Patrick’s report and recommendations – omits any process or procedure for the actual selection of Special advisors. It has dispensed with any pretence at selection as would be understood by those commonly applying for a job. No Minister needs to explain what skills, experience etc were either required for the post or how he or she established whether the selected SPAD had those skills".

This is not me speaking. This is a former Commissioner for Public Appointments who stated that:

"As the ... January 2020 Code stands there can be no cause for complaint or lack of compliance because there is no process about which to complain. A Code for Appointment would normally set out a basic appointment process ... Criteria for selection ... opportunity ... to demonstrate how they fulfil the criteria ... Some form of objective ... process ... Records of the above".

Yet, I repeat this point: all of that, which was in the old code, was systematically and deliberately stripped out. That is what the House is being asked to endorse today. When it comes to amendment No 4, the House will decide whether it is at ease with the fact that what at least, on paper, used to exist, no longer exists. There is no process for a person who has been appointed to a highly paid public office, as a public servant, as part of the Civil Service and paid from public funds. I suggest that Members should ask themselves whether they are content that no process should attend to that or whether they think that there should be a basic process of knowing the job, the job description and the criteria that are required to be met and to keep records of why the decision was made. I suggest that those are so elemental and basic that, as Felicity Huston said, you cannot ignore them. You cannot write them out of existence, yet that is exactly what has been done.

I have heard it said by some that, if we accept amendment No 4, require a job description, set out the requirements to be met by a successful applicant, achieve a candidate pool and require the Department to complete and retain documentation about the process, you would rob a Minister of his right to appoint somebody politically akin to his viewpoint. That is absolute nonsense. What is in amendment No 4 is not the entirety of the process. It details the basic fundamentals, and the Minister can build further elements around those. There is nothing in amendment No 4 that would prevent a Minister from appointing someone with political empathy to their standpoint.

I say that with the certainty of legislation. The Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 is still the law and will be the law for any Minister making an appointment. It states:

"So far as they relate to discrimination on the ground of political opinion, Parts III and V"

— those are the Parts that prohibit it —

"do not apply to or in relation to an employment or occupation where the essential nature of the job requires it to be done by a person holding, or not holding, a particular political opinion."

Therefore, you can indicate, lawfully and legally, that any applicant needs to be someone who has political empathy with your standpoint as a Minister. There is nothing in law and nothing in amendment No 4 that would stop that. Therefore, it would be a straw man who would suggest that, if we put all that in, it would create a prohibition. Patently, it would not. Indeed, there has been some misinformation about that from the highest level. Minister Murphy wrote a four-page letter to his Executive colleagues on 17 November. In that letter, he stated:

"Where the law currently recognises the political nature of special adviser appointments and allows an exception for that on the merit principle" —.

I had better read the whole paragraph. He stated:

"Ministers will no longer be able to choose the person they want to have as special adviser" —.

Wrong. He continued:

"The code of appointments that we agreed earlier this year requires special adviser appointments to be delivered in line with employment law" —.

Yes, so does the Bill.

"This Bill will require every special adviser to be appointed following a competition".

Not exactly. It does not have to be a publicised public competition. It can be done by gathering a pool of candidates.

He says:

"This Bill will require every official adviser to be appointed following a competition drawing from a pool of candidates".

Yes.

"regardless of the needs for those appointments to be personal appointments".

No, they are personal appointments. The selection criteria can set that out. There is nothing in amendment No 4 that prevents that.

Then he says:

"and where the law currently recognises, the political nature of special appointments allows an exception for that in the merit principle."

You can still do that by saying, "So long as I comply with the 1998 Order, I can have someone of my political affinity". I am not trying to interfere with that. I recognise that spads have to be in tune with their Minister. I recognise that Ministers need spads that they can work with. I am not saying otherwise, but I am saying that, when we come to spend public money on an appointment such as this, with all the privileges that go with it, the public are entitled to know that there was a candidate pool, criteria were set and a record was kept, rather than some huge sinecure being handed out to somebody unknown and secretly. That is what amendment No 4 is all about.

I respectfully suggest to the House that amendment No 4 is worthy of its support and goes some considerable way to restoring some probity to and public respect for the process of appointing spads.

I will move to amendment No 5. I should say before I do, that clause 1(5) — we will be voting on entire clauses — deals with setting salaries. Again, let me make it plain. I am not seeking to legislate that a certain amount should be the salary for a spad. All I am seeking to do is two things: tie the salary to the Civil Service, which is politically advantageous because it depoliticises it; and tie it to the higher level of grade 5. I want to tie it to the Civil Service and to set the upper ceiling. I am not saying within that upper ceiling what any spad should be paid. Any code can set as many bands as it likes, but the one thing that it cannot do is to breach the ceiling. The codes still set the bands. The Minister and the appointment process selects from within those bands who is paid what. All it does is say that you cannot be paid above grade 5 of the Civil Service, which, presently, is something in the order of £81,000 to £82,000 a year. On the current bands, there is no one, apparently, being paid more than that, so there is no prejudice to anyone.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Yes, I will give way.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Does the Member agree that the salary levels up until 2017 were almost obscene? The top spads were getting £91,809 each. You had the situation where a junior Minister on a ministerial salary of £6,500 a year was serviced by a spad on £72,120 a year. Is that not an 'Alice in Wonderland' situation?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

It certainly is. The Member reminds me of something. The setting of salaries was so arbitrary — Ministers could change them when they liked — that, in about 2014, the then First Minister and Finance Minister changed the salary upper level to, I think it was, about £70,000 to about £90,000 overnight. Clause 1(5) is necessary in order to set the upper ceiling so that the public know that their money is subject to the restraint of a ministerial whim not being able to change the bands to make the sky the limit because an upper limit is set in statute.

I have heard it asked, "Oh, but what if we need some supercharged individual as an adviser, and we need to pay him megabucks. Are we not allowed to do that?". Appointing a spad is not the only way. This Government and many Governments depend highly on consultants and go out to a consultant on something. You also have the prerogative powers, and I will come to clause 3 in a minute. The prerogative power will still survive so that, if someone needs to make a case that they need a super-paid whomever at £150,000 a year, they can do it under the prerogative power of clause 3. The only change through clause 3 will be that you have to bring the matter to the House, but you can still do it, so it is not a prohibition on anything like that. However, it is a prohibition on paying your spad more than a senior civil servant at grade 5, and that, I think, is a sensible and necessary proposition.

Amendment No 5 deals with clause 1(6). I have to say to the House that this issue touches a raw nerve with many people. The House will recall that the primary function of the 2013 special advisers Act was to remove from office those with serious criminal convictions following the public outrage at the appointment of Mary McArdle, a convicted murderer, as the special adviser to the then Communities Minister. That might not have been the title then, but it is now. That was the catalyst for my bringing the 2013 special advisers Bill, and that, by virtue of the votes in the House, set in place a statutory provision that such a person cannot hold the position of special adviser.

What did we discover in the RHI inquiry? We discovered that Sinn Féin consciously and deliberately circumvented that legislation by appointing someone referred to in shorthand as a "super-spad". That person was no longer paid out of public funds but was put in a position to control the other spads of Sinn Féin and was to be accountable directly to the deputy First Minister. That was a total breach of the spirit of the 2013 Act. Clause 1(6) and amendment No 5 are about blocking that loophole, because, in those situations, what prevailed was that the super-spad had the full run of Stormont Castle, an office in Stormont Castle, and the Civil Service acknowledged him and dealt with him as though he were a spad. That made a mockery of the democratic decision of the House. Therefore, with clause 1(5), I seek to ensure that we close that gap.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Yes.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I refer the Member to paragraph 54.34 of the RHI report, where Lord Justice Coghlin says:

"In effect, an individual who could not legally have been appointed as a SpAd and who was not subject to the mandatory code, or other relevant codes, managed and co-ordinated those who were employed and paid from public funds as temporary civil servants and who were subject to the relevant legal structure and codes."

Can the Member reassure us that his amendment will stop that from happening in the future?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Absolutely; that is what it is all about. Clause 1(6) is all about that. The Member beat me to it, because I was going to that exact page in the RHI report. I am going to read a little more of it — this is page 158 of volume 3 — because, back at paragraph 54.32, it states:

"According to Mr Ó Muilleoir" —

he, of course, was then the Finance Minister —

"the 2013 Act, in prohibiting the appointment of Special Advisers with serious criminal convictions, was seen by Sinn Féin as: '...an attack on the peace process, as undermining the inclusion which is the foundation of the peace process, and it was not our intention to discriminate against former political prisoners who had helped build the peace.' As a result, Sinn Féin set up a centralised system under which Aidan McAteer, who did have a proscribed conviction and who was now to be neither appointed nor paid as a civil servant, was engaged to 'manage and co-ordinate' on a day-to-day basis the work of all Sinn Féin Special Advisers. It seems that all of the Sinn Féin SpAds were aware that Aidan McAteer was acting as the senior Sinn Féin adviser with the direct authority of the deputy First Minister, the late Martin McGuinness. In his evidence to the Inquiry Sir Malcom McKibbin accepted that when he was first introduced to Aidan McAteer, he was told by the then deputy First Minister that he would be working underneath his (Mr McGuinness’s) direction and authority. As such, according to Mr Ó Muilleoir, he was seen as occupying an elevated position with more authority than any of the other SpAds."

And then the sentence that Mr Wells quoted:

"In effect, an individual who could not legally have been appointed as a SpAd and who was not subject to the mandatory code, or other relevant codes, managed and co-ordinated those who were employed and paid from public funds as temporary civil servants and who were subject to the relevant legal structure and codes."

Do I really need to say anything more on the necessity of clause 1(6) and the need to shut that loophole?

It also informs another matter, which is the trust that can be placed in the proper implementation of codes. If a senior party in the Government was prepared to so deliberately circumvent the law of the land, then what confidence can anyone have in mere codes that are then amenable to their interpretation? That is a sobering question for the House, and it is one that needs to be addressed.

Members will recall that the 2013 Act quite properly became known by shorthand as "Ann's law", because of the fantastic work that was done by Ann Travers, sister of the murdered Mary Travers. Members will be aware that just a couple of weeks ago Ann Travers, writing in a local newspaper, identified this clause as being critical for both her and innocent victims who felt trampled and betrayed by the fact that a law that they thought had been established was circumvented in the manner in which it was. This House has an opportunity today to right that wrong, and I urge it not to miss that opportunity.

Amendment No 5 simply adds a few words, which came from departmental — I think it was the Executive Office — recommendations, as it felt that the clause did not have the clarity required. It simply adds words to make it clear that the special adviser being talked about is one:

"by reason of the holding of that post".

That is the limitation that is to be put on such a person. Given that the Civil Service was complicit, in the sense that it accepted the role of a super-spad in breach of the provisions of the 2013 Act, clause 1(6) puts this statutory duty on a permanent secretary:

"a permanent secretary must ensure that no person other than a duly appointed special adviser is afforded by the department the cooperation, recognition and facilitation due to a special adviser."

Amendment No 5 would then, after "special adviser", add the words:

"by reason of the holding of that post".

If you cannot trust the Minister, you put the duty on the permanent secretary. It therefore does two things. Clause 1(6) states that the Minister must ensure that the duly appointed special adviser, and only he, will exercise the functions of a spad, but, as a fail-safe, the amendment would put a statutory obligation on the permanent secretary to give no facilitation or cooperation to anyone who is not a spad in relation to the role of a spad. That is how clause 1(6) and the amendment seek to shut down that abuse of the system.

Amendment No 6 is a mere drafting amendment. We then come to amendment No 7. It seeks to introduce a new clause. This brings us into the territory of how many spads there should be in the Executive Office. The House knows from the initial drafting of my Bill that it was my strong contention, and it is still my personal belief, that an Executive Office with eight spads is way above what is required, when you consider that, at a particular time, that is the same number as there was for the entirety of the Welsh Government. I wanted to reduce the number of spads to four. Part of the function of a Committee Stage is to have discussions about a Bill, and I have to recognise that I am not going to achieve that. I am therefore now putting to the House an adjusted proposition.

Historically, the First Minister had three spads and the deputy First Minister had three spads. That was the position from 1998. That is how it was originally drafted: six spads in all. That is how it continued until 2007. In 2007, along came a junior Minister, with the emphasis on the word "junior", whose ego required a special adviser, so the law was changed to introduce special advisers for junior Ministers. That was done under the Civil Service Commissioners (Amendment) Order in Council 2007.

What I am seeking to do by amendment No 7 is to introduce a clause to repeal the authorising provision, the 2007 order. In other words, I am seeking to remove the right of a junior Minister to have a special adviser. As Mr Muir put it to me rather neatly in conversation, I want to restore the factory settings to what they were in 1998. In other words, we go back to where we were, with three special advisers for the First Minister, three for the deputy First Minister and none for the junior Ministers. I believe that that is right and appropriate.

Up until a few weeks ago — whether it was by consent in the Executive or otherwise, I do not know — there were no junior Minister spads. Then, suddenly, Sinn Féin maxed out its appointments and appointed a junior Minister spad. The DUP has not. Indeed, interestingly, through most of this pandemic, the Executive Office has managed with five spads: three Sinn Féin and two DUP. That has now been evened up, with the DUP having appointed a further one. There are now three each for the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, but Sinn Féin has additionally appointed a junior Minister spad. I am trying to undo that. I am undoing it in the context that you cannot just remove someone from a job if they have compensation rights, so clause 4 and the appendix will take care of that. However, sustaining eight spads is way beyond what is needed. By voting down amendment No 7, the message would be that we wanted to sustain the option to have eight spads. By voting for amendment No 7, Members would indicate that they wanted to have a maximum of six. That, I think, is correct. If amendment No 7 stands, I will propose the removal of clause 2, which is the one that would bring down the number of spads for the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, because I am reconciled to the fact that I will not do better than six, and I have to accept that. Therefore, if clause 7 is passed, I will oppose clause 2 standing part of the Bill. I hope that that is clear. The mission and ambition is to allow for six spads, and the mechanism is to reduce the opportunity for junior Ministers to appoint spads.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Yes.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

First, as one who served here from 1998 to 2007, it is clear to me that junior Ministers could function perfectly adequately without having their own bespoke spads. I think that I had better name the individual who became a junior Minister in 2007: Ian Paisley Jnr. I do not think that everybody picked up the clue that he was giving us. When he took that post in 2007 and realised that other, senior, Ministers had a spad, he demanded one as well. That is the only reason for it. Of course, when Sinn Féin heard that Ian Paisley Jnr was getting a spad, it had to have one for its junior Minister.

It is interesting that the Independent Financial Review Panel carried out an independent assessment of the role of junior Ministers and decided that, such was their importance, their salary had to be reduced dramatically down to that of the Deputy Chairperson of a scrutiny Committee. That is an indication of the panel's assessment of the role of junior Ministers. Their role is more of a supportive one; they do not make policy, they do not have a vote at the Executive, and they cannot issue ministerial directions. Therefore, if someone is at the level of a Deputy Chairperson, and we would never dream of giving the Deputy Chairperson of a Committee their own personal spad, it is logical that there was never a need for them to have a spad in the first place and, with the demotion of the role of junior Minister, it is a complete anachronism to have them now.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Yes. That was a comprehensive intervention that set the record straight on those matters. There it is. I hope that the House understands the how and why of what I am trying to do.

I will take the House to clause 3, which relates to the exercise of royal prerogative powers by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. Royal prerogative powers, in the main, died out in the 17th century. However, they continue in some aspects. Amongst those upon whom they are bestowed is the Sinn Féin deputy First Minister when acting jointly with the First Minister to exercise a royal prerogative — a little irony on its own. The exercise of that power is unbridled. As the appointment, some years ago, of Mr David Gordon as Executive spokesman demonstrated, it is a power that can be exercised behind the backs of the Assembly. What happened with the appointment of Mr David Gordon was that the then First Minister and the then deputy First Minister, by decree, changed the law by royal prerogative. They brought in the provision enabling them to appoint David Gordon. The law that they made was called the Civil Service Commissioners (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2016. Here is the critical point: it was done behind the backs of the Assembly.

The Assembly is a legislative Assembly, but here was a law made not by the legislators. Here was a law made by royal decree. On foot of that law being made, David Gordon was then appointed. The Assembly was never consulted. We were never asked to approve the law. It was just done. In my terms, it was done behind our backs.

The purpose of clause 3 is to repeal the 2016 Order and then, very importantly, not to remove the royal prerogative power but to say that, if that power is ever exercised again, it must be approved by affirmative resolution of the House. In other words, if the law is to be changed by royal prerogative under the Civil Service Order, the House must be aware of that and, in fact, must approve it. It does not strip out the prerogative power, but it tempers it by making it subject to the approval of the House. In 2021, that is the least that we should expect.

That takes me back to the point about someone saying, "Oh, what if we need a super-paid spad because of his miraculous knowledge?". That is how you would appoint him. You would appoint him under the royal prerogative power, but that would be subject to the House giving that power. I would find it very surprising, even with the antipathy of some to the origin of the Bill, if anyone would really think it appropriate that we should maintain unfettered the royal prerogative power and not subject it to our say-so as a legislative Assembly. That is what amendment No 7 is about.

Of course, amendment No 8 then has to make adjustments to clause 4, because clause 4 was first drafted to keep the legislation in line with my initial proposal that special advisers in the Executive Office reduce from eight to four and that, therefore, all Executive spads would cease to hold office on 31 March next year, and any reappointed, up to the quota, would be reappointed at that stage. That would no longer be necessary because, if we are only removing the junior Minister's spad, it is only the junior Minister's spad who needs to be catered for in clause 4. Amendment No 8 has been proposed to make that abundantly clear and therefore to reduce the impact of that.

That also means, of course, that Minister Murphy's letter —.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. I was going to raise this point in my contribution to the debate. Clause 4(1) states:

"Any special adviser in post in the Executive Office shall cease to hold office on 31 March 2021."

Can the Member clarify whether that is now required, given his amendments and the changes to the junior Minister's spad only? Is clause 4(1) required?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Amendment No 8 will change it so that clause 4(1) reads:

"Any special adviser in post in the Executive Office under the provisions of the Civil Service Commissioners (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order in Council 2007 shall cease to hold office".

In other words, it is only the junior Minister's spad. That is what amendment No 8 does. It reduces the need to replace or reappoint all the spads in the Executive Office, which would have been necessary had we been reducing the number from eight to four. We are reducing them in only the junior Minister's office, so only the junior Minister's spad is now caught by clause 4(1). Therefore, the other three of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister carry on unaffected. That is how it is.

Amendment No 9 is simply to take out clause 4(3), because the advice, ultimately, was that it was superfluous and not necessary. The law would speak for itself. Any appointments after 31 March would, obviously, have to be in accordance with the new law. So, clause 4(3) is removed by amendment No 9.

That takes me through all the amendments. I am quite happy to leave it there for now.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Committee for Finance considered written evidence from 22 organisations and individuals. The Committee received oral evidence from seven organisations and individuals, including the Bill sponsor, the Minister of Finance, the permanent secretary of the Department of Finance and the, now retired, head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, whose post remains vacant. The Committee considered papers and presentations from the Assembly Research and Information Service (RaISe) to support it in its deliberations.

The Committee considered carefully the views of all who provided written and/or oral evidence, and, on behalf of the Committee, I thank all who took the time to provide detailed evidence to inform and support the Committee in its consideration of the Bill. On behalf of the Committee, I also offer my thanks to the Bill sponsor, Mr Jim Allister, for providing oral evidence and for his willingness to bring amendments to address a number of concerns raised by the Committee, witnesses and stakeholders. I am grateful to Mr Allister and all members of the Committee for their input and engagement during the Committee Stage. I formally put on record our thanks to Jim McManus, the Committee Clerk; the Finance Committee staff and RaISe; and the Bill office staff, who worked hard to ensure that we got to this stage. We thank them all for their sterling and conscientious efforts.

Throughout the Committee Stage, the Committee was mindful of the distinction between Mr Allister's role as Bill sponsor and his role as a member of the Committee for Finance. It did, however, prove helpful to have Mr Allister as a member of the Committee, where he could hear at first hand the concerns of other members and respond to those concerns. In some cases, that was to provide clarity on the provision in the Bill, and, in other instances, it was to accept members' genuine concerns and to bring forward amendments that are among those we are considering today.

Before dealing substantively with the proposed amendments to the Bill —.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Certainly.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

The Member raised an important point, which was raised by the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone during the Committee's consideration, when she made the point that, perhaps, it could be seen as a slight conflict of interest in having the promoter of the Bill as a member of the Committee. In fact, I think that most members believed that that was extremely useful. It was fortuitous and coincidental but certainly made the Bill's passage through the Committee much simpler. What is his reaction to the suggestion that was made that, for future private Member's Bills, the sponsor should be allowed to be an ex officio member of the relevant Committee, so that the other Committees would benefit from the opportunities that ours had during the past two months?

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Member not just for his comments but for his work during the Bill's Committee Stage. As was expressed by the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, having the Member there did indeed make it much easier. In future, we should look at allowing Members who are bringing a private Member's Bill to be an ex officio member of that Committee during that stage to enable the smoother passage of legislation.

As Chairman of the Committee for Finance, I will refer to some general issues that were considered by members during the Committee Stage. The Committee report outlines details of the considerable debate during Committee Stage in relation to the need for this legislation or whether codes and guidance were sufficient or, indeed, preferable.

This was an important consideration as it goes to the very heart of the purpose and intent of the Bill.

A former head of the Civil Service informed the Committee that he was expressing the Executive’s view that codes and guidance were sufficient to address the issues that gave rise to the Bill. The Minister and the Department of Finance's permanent secretary echoed this view. However, a number of other stakeholders did not support the view that reliance on codes and guidance was appropriate, given the prevailing circumstances here.

The view of the Department of Finance was that many of the provisions that the Bill seeks to introduce are inherent in the codes and guidance that are already in place. The Minister and Department of Finance's officials referred to codes having been strengthened. A former head of the Civil Service informed the Committee that the strengthened codes and new guidance should be viewed as evidence of the commitment of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Indeed, the New Decade, New Approach agreement contains a commitment that the Executive would produce strengthened codes "as a matter of urgency". Yet, as I will outline later, at least one of those codes was stripped of any provisions that would have provided an appropriate level of openness, transparency and accountability.

Members will be aware that the Committee divided on every clause. That was as a result of a fundamental disagreement within the Committee on whether codes or legislation were the most appropriate way forward. On balance, having considered the evidence and the unique circumstances in which we find ourselves in Northern Ireland, the Committee supported the legislative route as an appropriate means of providing the openness, transparency and accountability that the public demand.

The Committee also considered written and oral evidence on the independence of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, or the lack thereof. I am happy to provide more detail on that issue during the Final Stage debate. However, for now, I put on record that the Committee has made a recommendation in its report that the First Minister and deputy First Minister make legislative provision to bring the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland to international standards.

I will move on to the amendments. I will speak as the Chair of the Committee for Finance and will confine my remarks to those amendments that were considered by the Committee.

The amendment to clause 1(2), which was brought by the Bill's sponsor, is technical in nature, and the Committee was content with that amendment.

The Committee noted that amendment Nos 2 and 3 to clause 1(3) have been tabled by the Bill's sponsor to address the need to retain and respect the principle that a Minister should be responsible for the conduct of their special adviser. The Committee was content, therefore, to support the amendment.

Clause 1(3) proposes to bring special advisers into the Northern Ireland Civil Service's disciplinary process. Those provisions were drafted under the previous code of appointment for special advisers. The Committee noted that, after the introduction of the Bill, the code of appointment was considerably revised. The revision removed many of the provisions that were in the previous code. The revised code, which is just over one page long, contains little information on any formal requirements. In the view of a former Commissioner for Public Appointments, that is contrary to the fundamental requirements for a code of appointment.

Amendment No 4 provides for the reinstatement of the provisions that were removed from the original code. In noting criticism from the chair of the renewable heat incentive inquiry that the previous code had been ignored, the Committee was of the view that it was not appropriate to remove those provisions. The Committee, therefore, agreed to the amendment. In supporting this amendment, the Committee also noted that the revised code of appointment means that there is now no process for the appointment of special advisers with which to comply. That, in turn, renders the provisions under clause 1(4) largely nugatory. Amendment No 4 would make it a statutory requirement to have a due process of selection for special advisers.

During the Committee's deliberations, it considered the need to keep a job description for a special adviser as broad as possible to assist in appointing the most appropriate candidate for the position. The Committee came to the view that the amendment to clause 1(3) does not prescribe what should be in the job description and was, therefore, content with the amendment.

In consideration of amendment No 2, the Committee agreed with the Department's view that the term "ministerial involvement" in the Bill was not compatible with the position that a Minister is responsible for the conduct and discipline of their special adviser. The Committee was, therefore, content to support the amendment brought by the Bill sponsor on that principle.

During its deliberations, the Bill sponsor informed the Committee that amendment No 5 would be proposed in order to address a Department of Finance concern that there is a need to ensure that clause 1(6) relates solely to special advisers. The Committee was content, therefore, to support amendment No 5. The Committee also supported amendment No 6, which is a technical amendment.

In its deliberations on clause 2, there was Committee consensus on the assessment that eight special advisers in the Executive Office is too many. There was no consensus, however, on what the appropriate number should be or whether there is a need to legislate in order to achieve the appropriate number. In consideration of the fact that the current complement of special advisers is provided for in legislation through the Civil Service Commissioners (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, the Committee's view was that amending that order, as provided for at clause 2, was the appropriate vehicle for achieving any reduction.

Although there are six special advisers in post in the Executive Office rather than the permitted maximum of eight, it is important to make the distinction between the number in post and the complement. The complement of special advisers in the Executive Office is eight. There is nothing to prevent the First Minister and deputy First Minister appointing up to eight special advisers at any time in the future. The intent of the legislation is, first, to reduce that complement, and, secondly, to establish an agreed smaller complement, whatever that number may be.

The Committee agreed an amendment to the original proposal, which was previously tabled by the Bill sponsor, to remove the provision for junior Ministers to have special advisers. That would reduce the complement of special advisers in the Executive Office from eight to six. The Committee also agreed to a previous amendment to provide for two special advisers each for the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Together, those amendments if passed would result in a complement of four special advisers in the Executive Office.

Although the Committee agreed to clause 2 subject to the previously tabled amendments, there was considerable debate about whether four special advisers in the Executive Office was the appropriate number. When asked for his views on the provision for eight special advisers in the Executive Office, the then Head of the Civil Service stated that the First Minister and deputy First Minister:

"have chosen not to exercise that right at the moment."

That goes back to my point that there is nothing to prevent them doing so in the future.

The Department of Finance's view was that reducing the number does not recognise the seniority or weight of the role. Similar views were expressed by the Executive Office. Neither the evidence from the Department of Finance nor the Executive Office was able to clarify how the seniority or weight of the role of a special adviser in the Executive Office differs significantly to that of a special adviser in any other Department, and neither did it explain how the seniority or weight of the role should be a factor in determining the complement. Surely, weight and seniority should be determined by job evaluation and grading, whilst complement should be determined by workload.

In written evidence, the Institute for Government expressed the view that:

"having a larger number of special advisers was not necessarily something that should be perceived negatively."

It took the view that:

"more advisers are helpful for a multi-party government as more communication between ministers and their teams is necessary."

The Committee considered that and other evidence, and, having divided, agreed by a majority of one that the appropriate number of special advisers in the Executive Office should be four.

I note the Bill sponsor's proposals to repeal the Civil Service Commissioners (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order in Council 2007 through amendment No 7, the introduction of a new clause A2 and his intention to oppose the Question that clause 2 stand part of the Bill. While recognising that that will have the effect of reducing the complement of special advisers in the Executive Office from eight to six, by removing the facility for junior Ministers to appoint special advisers, I am cognisant that those amendments were tabled after the Committee Stage. Therefore, I cannot comment further as Chairperson of the Committee, except to say that, if agreed, those amendments would have the overall effect of reducing the complement of special advisers in the Executive Office, which was one outcome on which the Committee achieved consensus.

In consideration of amendment No 8 to clause 4, the Committee accepted the Bill sponsor's explanation that his proposed amendment is, essentially, a technical amendment that relates to drafting issues.

I will now make some remarks about the Bill as leader of the Ulster Unionist Party. The Bill is — I choose my words carefully — a regrettable but necessary measure to restore a degree of confidence in the Northern Ireland Executive; confidence that, through a wide variety of issues, has, regrettably, been much diluted. Some of us hoped that, after a three-year hiatus of the Assembly that was caused by calamitous administration; very questionable, if not bordering on mendacious, practices; a dereliction of the normal processes of governance; and the failure to adhere to the custom and practice of government elsewhere in our nation, or even across the border, there would, at least, be a collective desire to reform from within. However, we have, I am afraid, all been let down.

When gathering evidence on the Bill, I was struck by how Sue Gray, the permanent secretary of the Department of Finance, commented that the court of public opinion would act as an incentive to good governance, as it would in Westminster, and by how other senior officials, including the now knighted Sir David Sterling, said that there was no need for a legislative approach because good behaviour and the commitment to New Decade, New Approach would encourage change. I wish that that were so.

However, the experience and evidence of the RHI inquiry showed that much needs to be reformed, and our lived experience since January of this year has shown us that the belief that change will be embraced by the Executive is, I am afraid, a forlorn hope. Indeed, the flow of information that comes from Departments, the obfuscation of Ministers about issues such as non-orders of PPE, and the paucity and accuracy of replies by some Ministers, such as the Economy Minister, on virtually every issue show that there has been no change in the culture of the Executive. After nearly 11 months, there has been every opportunity to make change, but there has been no, or very little, attempt by the Executive to reform themselves.

The intent of New Decade, New Approach and the RHI inquiry has been not only thwarted but, in effect, buried by some of the political parties that should be embracing change the most. It is our party's firm belief that, without a legislative imperative, no change will occur. That should be a concern for all of us who believe in the devolution of power. It was the belief of our party and the people of Northern Ireland that the Belfast Agreement would ensure that normal checks, balances and controls —

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will the Member state which amendment he is speaking to?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I ask the Member to ensure that he is referring to the Bill.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

As my remarks unfold, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will find that they refer to the amendments in this group. A significant degree of indulgence has been given on other topics, so I am sure that the Member will understand.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you rule on whether the Member is speaking to an amendment?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Mr O'Dowd, I, in my role as Deputy Speaker, endeavour to show a degree of latitude. I encourage Members to speak to the relevant amendments. When I think that a Member has exceeded that, I will intervene.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I will be speaking to —.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Mr O'Dowd, I will take a further point of order, but I hope that you will not persist in this action.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not think that there is any need for that tone, with the greatest respect to you and your office. There is absolutely no need for that tone. Will you please refer me to where Standing Orders refer to latitude to allow Members to speak beyond amendments?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

It is the role of the Deputy Speaker to conduct the debate. It is my custom and practice in exercising that role to give a little latitude to Members, but I endeavour to keep them to the subject of debate. The Member, and all other Members, realise that and have seen me, on regular occasions, draw Members back to the relevant piece of legislation. I ask Mr Aiken to continue.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you. I will, of course, refer to issues to do with spads and governance as I continue to make my remarks.

It should be a matter for all of us who believe in the devolution of power, and it was the belief of those like our party and the people of Northern Ireland in the Belfast Agreement, who thought that normal checks, balances and controls, like those available across the rest of the United Kingdom, would ensure that good and uncorrupted governance would occur, but it has not. Indeed, when observers from outside Northern Ireland think that the court of public opinion, or just doing what is right, will suffice, that view is countered by actions like those of the deputy First Minister and other Ministers during Bobby Storey's funeral, undermining the very health message that all of the Executive were pledged to support, or the First Minister, Economy Minister and Agriculture Minister utilising cross-community voting mechanisms to block a non-cross-community health proposal, only to, one —.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order. I draw the Member back to amendment Nos 1 to 9.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you. One week later, they agreed to tighter restrictions. I will get to this point, Mr Deputy Speaker. That shows how far from the norm, and how immature, the Northern Ireland political process is. It is too fragile to be left to best practice and behaviour when clearly, in Northern Ireland, it is anything but. The crux of the issues is whether there is a need for legislation or whether codes and guidance are sufficient, or indeed preferable. The then head of the Civil Service, David Sterling, expressed a view that codes and guidance were sufficient, although this was the same official who, during the RHI inquiry, expressed a view that — I paraphrase — keeping appropriate records of meetings would not be conducive to the wishes of the two largest political parties.

Perhaps Members — this talks directly to the amendments referring to spads — who have read with a sense of incredulity, or even, like me, anger, of the activity of our Ministers, spads and senior civil servants in Sam McBride's book 'Burned' will, outside the diktats of their central committees and councils, realise that, unlike other Administrations, we now have to have a legislative framework. In his book, Mr McBride states that:

"Therefore, some of the worst behaviour set out in this book — which will to many readers appear morally corrupt, even if it is not in breach of the law — is in my experience the exception, rather than the norm."

I wish and hope that that is so but, without a strong legislative framework, how can we avoid the temptation, or worse, of political corruption?

The legislation also deals with detailed concerns. A code for special advisers that is fit for purpose is vital. Curiously, indicating perhaps the sense of commitment from the Executive to reform themselves, one of their first actions was to remove existing safeguards. The words of a former Commissioner for Public Appointments suggested that action was contrary to fundamental requirements for a code of appointment.

Furthermore, having a process for employing a spad, bearing in mind that some parties wish for a salary cap for these individuals to be removed, with a current salary band equating them to that of a Minister, probably says more about the relative power that spads have. Even a cursory reading of the RHI evidence, where Ministers would be directed by spads who spoke with the authority of the party or from offices on the Falls Road, again shows that there is more than enough reason for legislation.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Yes.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Does the Member agree with my party colleague who spoke earlier and talked about accountability mechanisms that recently, when he wrote a letter to Committees purporting to come from the Finance Committee, the Committee was able to hold him to account, and that, in fact, his letter was not on behalf of the Finance Committee but on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party?

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for that. Indeed, in Committee, I apologised for it. While we are talking about that letter, to make sure that there was no break —.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order. It was a very interesting letter, but can we return to the subject of the legislation in front of us? Mr Aiken, have you finished your contribution, or is there more to come?

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I have more.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

It is now 1.00 pm, and the Business Committee is due to meet. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the setting until 2.00 pm, after which the first item of business will be questions to the Minister of Education. After Question Time, Mr Aiken will have the opportunity to continue his speech.

The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 1.00 pm.

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

Oral Answers to Questions — Education

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

1. Mr Muir asked the Minister of Education for an update on a new build for Bangor Central Integrated Primary School. (AQO 1171/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. Through Fresh Start funding, my Department is delivering a hugely significant capital investment of almost £10 million in Bangor Central Integrated Primary School. The business case was approved by the Department in July 2020 and identified the preferred option of a new-build school on a new site on the Balloo Road in Bangor. The project will provide a brand new single-storey school with modern facilities, fully compliant with my Department’s school building handbook. The school will be built on a new site 1·7 miles from the existing school in an easily accessible part of the town, with sufficient room for future expansion. The construction work will be able to take place without causing any disruption to the ongoing operation of the school.

In July 2020, the Education Authority (EA) appointed an integrated consultant team to undertake the design, and that work is now in the early stages of the design process. When completed, the new facilities will enhance the provision of integrated education in the north Down area and support the future growth of the sector.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his response. As he has outlined, this will be a new site on the Balloo Road. What assurances can the Minister give that the children and young people who live in Bangor town centre will be catered for as a result of the move to the new site?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

If the Member is talking about transport, there is an entitlement for free school transport to be provided if children live beyond a certain distance from their school. It should be said that, because Bangor Central Integrated Primary School is the one integrated primary school in Bangor, it does draw from a fairly wide catchment area.

As the Member will be aware from the response to the question for written answer that he submitted, the two main wards in the centre of Bangor represent about a third of the pupils who go to Bangor Central, with the other two thirds coming from outside that area. To some extent, the new build will shift, perhaps, the emphasis or the location, but, as happens on all occasions, any movement that children need to make will be catered for.

Rachel Woods (Green, North Down)

The Minister will know that I have many questions on this, but, for now, can he outline what consultation was done with the school, the board of governors, and the parents about this move as well as with the wider community? Will he commit to meet me, a group of parents and interested parties regarding the proposed school move?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I am always happy to meet the Member. I have met some interested parties on this. There was a project board for each of the Fresh Start projects, and that involved the school directly. Consultation and discussion took place. If the issue is about the location, we should remember that there are at least three separate issues on that. First, the statutory duty on the Department is to integrated education, not to a specific site or location. Therefore, when looking at this, it is about what is in the best interests of the sector as a whole.

Secondly, from the point of view of a business case and public costs, this has a considerable difference from simply building on site at the current location. The Member should also be aware that projects funded by Fresh Start capital require Treasury sign-off, so it is not simply a matter of what the Department feels and, indeed, is about providing a situation that gives best value for money.

Thirdly, looking at integrated education more broadly, there will be more room for the school at its new site. So if, for instance, an additional unit needed to be added to the school, there would be an opportunity for that to happen at a future point, whereas accommodation space at the Bangor Central site, which I am very familiar with, is much more limited. All those factors need to be considered. I am happy to meet the Member to discuss those, but she should be aware that the decision on location has been taken.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

Minister, I certainly welcome the investment in my constituency. I understand that the board of governors and the staff of the school fully support the move, but there seems to be a body of resistance building against the move. Has your Department had any sense of that?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

It is natural that people see the history tied up with a particular site when a school is moving to a different location. As I indicated, if we were to provide a neighbourhood-specific site for every school that would not be an appropriate way of dealing with it. It is perfectly natural, and I suspect that most people, if they are linked with a particular school, will have a particular emphasis on its location. As the Member mentioned, the project board and the governors have accepted it. There is also, as I have indicated, a wider commitment in terms of a business case and what is provided to the Treasury in relation to it.

It is also the case that, because of the pressure on places in Bangor across the board, even at primary sector level, there is no question of displacement that will create problems, largely speaking, elsewhere, because there is really not much, if any, spare capacity in the system.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Question No 2, in the name of Mr Andy Allen, has been withdrawn.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

3. Mr Dickson asked the Minister of Education when decisions will be made on outstanding development proposals for schools in East Antrim moving to controlled integrated status. (AQO 1173/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

Development proposals (DPs) for transformation to controlled integrated status for two mid- and east Antrim schools were published on 26 March. They were DP 645 Carrickfergus Central Primary, where the proposal was to transform to controlled integrated status with effect from 1 September 2021 or as soon as possible thereafter, and DP 648, which is Seaview Primary School, to transform to controlled integrated status, again with effect from 1 September 2021 or soon after.

Area planning activity was paused, due to COVID, on 3 April 2020, with the exception of special education provision in mainstream and special school settings, so that all resources, including staff, could be redeployed in the Department’s emergency response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a consequence, the progression of DPs has been delayed. However, we are now in a position where this can restart, and an extraordinary meeting of the area planning steering group was held on 21 October and a decision taken formally to resume all area planning operations and structures from that date.

The Department has extended the statutory objection period — objection can be letters both of support and of opposition — for affected DPs to provide a full two-month consultation outside the suspension period. The revised closing dates for the transformation proposals was 9 November 2020. Work on the assessment of the proposals has recommenced, and decisions on the DPs will be made as soon as possible.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I very much appreciate the difficulties that his Department has had during that time, and I very much welcome that it is now back on track to make these decisions. I particularly welcome the one on Carrickfergus Central.

In respect of Seaview, you will appreciate that it is less than three miles away from an already successful integrated primary school that is celebrating 20 years this year. How does the Minister see the development plan proposal, bearing in mind that there are two villages less than three miles apart?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

The Member will forgive me, but I do not know how much he is aware, directly, of the process. Development proposals, while they will be initiated by different bodies and brought forward, ultimately will come down a legal decision that has to be made by the Department and, where there is a Minister, by the Minister directly. Therefore, I am duty-bound, ahead of any decision on a development proposal, to make no comment at all on the merits of that case, either for or against that proposal.

While all factors will be borne in mind with regard to the situation in Seaview and Carrick, I will have to judge all those factors when they come to me. I cannot comment on, for instance, the distance between existing schools at present. Obviously, all factors will be taken into account before there is a decision.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Minister advise the House, in making decisions about these matters, how far are the wider community ramifications considered? Let us take Seaview, for example. The impact on the like of Carnalbanagh Primary School, which the Minister kindly visited, could be serious, in that a school that is struggling to regenerate itself and to get back going could have the rug pulled from under it by the further advancement of an alternative offering nearby.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

We look at the impact on surrounding schools. It is not simply about the sustainability of the schools. The key focus is on the direct education of the young people. If a school was transforming, for example, or if there was a merger or closure, it is about what the implications will be for the local children. Any school will look at the wider implications for nearby schools. As part of the process, a grid of nearby schools is highlighted. Within that is the distance from the school, and it is broken down by sector and the number of children there. All factors are taken into account, but the overriding considerations are the broader educational implications for those children and what is sustainable. It is rare that any development proposal will be entirely uncontroversial in its nature, apart from, perhaps, a minor indication regarding school numbers. Any decision on a school will have a ripple effect across the board.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Question 4 in the name of Mr McGuigan, question 7 in the name of Mr Chambers and question 8 in the name of Mrs Cameron have been grouped.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

4. Mr McGuigan asked the Minister of Education when the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment will be in a position to provide detailed contingency arrangements for public examinations in 2021. (AQO 1174/17-22)

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

7. Mr Chambers asked the Minister of Education for an update on his planning for public examinations in 2021. (AQO 1177/17-22)

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

8. Mrs Cameron asked the Minister of Education, in light of the recent decision by the Welsh Government, what additional steps are being taken to support local students undertaking GCSE and A-level assessments. (AQO 1178/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Members for their questions. As the Principal Deputy Speaker said, I will answer all three together.

It is my priority that examinations to award Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) qualifications should go ahead as planned in 2021. I have already announced a number of adaptations to CCEA qualifications, including the omission of assessments for whole units for most GCSEs and health-related adaptations for AS and A levels. However, I have also said that I will keep the situation under review. My officials have been working with CCEA to develop a range of further mitigations and contingencies to respond to the fluid public health situation. That work is at an advanced stage, and I hope to provide more information very soon.

In these uncertain times, the familiarity with the exam system provides greater certainty as learners know what they are working towards and how it is awarded. Additionally, when looking at the wider implications of examinations, we have to be careful that our students in Northern Ireland are not disadvantaged between one another. It will not simply be a question of what is done in CCEA, because a number of students, particularly at A level, will carry out examinations from boards outside Northern Ireland. Their qualifications must be seen as robust, portable and comparable to those of their counterparts in neighbouring jurisdictions.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

In his response, the Minister talked about disadvantage. There is no doubt that the educational experience during the pandemic has varied greatly to date and will continue to vary for as long as COVID is with us. There is no level playing field. My view is that the CCEA proposals do not go far enough. Given the level of disruption to classes, the level of COVID absences and the amount of lost learning time, will the Minister give further consideration to how the exam series in 2021 will be addressed?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I have indicated that the exams will go ahead. It is important. There has been discussion — sometimes genuine; sometimes false — around when I will give certainty. The certainty is that the exams will take place. One of the by-products of all this is a genuine concern that has been raised that some schools that are concerned that exams will not take place are over-testing their pupils daily. That is negative. Schools should operate as normally as possible and should not place undue strain. One of the concerns with regard to the maintenance of exams is that we do not reach a situation where, if exams are abandoned, pupils are put under a seven-month microscope, effectively, where every assignment and action that they take is highly pressurised.

The Member is right. That is why we are looking at a range of adaptations. We have tasked CCEA with looking at optionality, which would give greater choice to students when they are taking it. It is also about what contingencies will be put in place.

While that may be a particular focus this year, it is not unique to this year. There will be a number of occasions in a normal year when pupils are not able to sit a particular paper — they are ill, perhaps, or disrupted in some shape or form. Those contingencies and what provision is put in place will need to be thought through. We will put in place a series of other adaptations. I hope to bring further clarity very shortly.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

Thank you, Minister, for your answer. You have sort of answered the question that I was going to ask. For the record, can the Minister commit to not changing his position so that students and parents at least have clarity about what they need to prepare for with regard to upcoming exams?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

It is entirely my position to ensure that exams take place. Nobody has a crystal ball and can say what position we will be in in a number of months. As even the Prime Minister indicated, there are still some difficult days ahead, albeit the overall position is improving. Exams represent the fairest route by which people can be judged entirely on their own merits. However, there have to be adaptations to this year's examinations because of the disruption that pupils have had and the fact that they have not necessarily been on a level playing field. The reality is that there is no perfect solution. It is noticeable that all jurisdictions are effectively doing exams by one means or another. Even if at least one of them is not saying that it is doing exams, it is doing exams by a different nomenclature.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he outline what steps his Department is taking or could take to further alleviate pressure on pupils facing important assessments under these very challenging circumstances?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

The first thing is to try to give certainty to pupils. When we see the adaptations, we will want to send a clear message to schools. A number of people have raised concerns, less about examinations directly and more about the pressure that children are being put under on a daily basis. Some of that comes from schools. They are worried about parents suing them etc, so they have taken a view that they have to provide evidence of the assessment that they produce. That has led to undue pressure being placed on children.

There has been a range of mitigations; some are driven by health and some will reduce the level of assessment. On a number of occasions, we have enabled a unit to be removed, particularly from GCSEs. It can be that up to 40% of a GCSE is not assessed. Effectively, then, a pupil will be assessed on 60% rather than 100%, which eases the burden considerably. To be fair, while there has been disruption, schools are becoming more adept at remote learning. It is not the case that, if someone is off, no work is being produced, albeit face-to-face teaching is very much to the fore. However, further adaptations need to be looked at. Those will focus on A level and AS level. I look forward to holding that conversation very shortly with CCEA, which is drafting proposals.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I am aware of one school in Northern Ireland that has pupils who are in their fourth period of self-isolation. That entire year group has missed four weeks of school-based learning this term. Of course, there are pupils who, due to COVID-related absence, are physically unable to sit the GCSEs that are taking place this week. Why are contingency plans not already in place to address anxiety caused by those absences and to ensure that all pupils receive fair grades?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

Certain contingencies have already been put in place. CCEA has made clear that, if there is a reason that someone cannot sit this week's examinations, there will be further opportunities in March or July. It is about trying to get things correct. I want to see two things happen. CCEA has to come forward with its draft proposals. We then need to produce a holistic picture. Deloitte had been tasked to look independently at what happened in 2020, and it is due to report fairly soon. It is important that all those lessons are put in place to ensure that we have something that is as fair as possible.

It is about trying to equalise as much as possible. There is no doubt that in the current circumstances there is no perfect solution and no entirely fair solution. However, trying to ensure that our pupils get something that is fair and equally portable, that we have something that links in with what is happening elsewhere and that exams with levels of mitigations, adaptations and contingencies, represent the fairest way forward, particularly as we look towards the robustness of our exams.

If, for instance, we were to abandon exams in 2021, there would also be the consequence that, when you get to 2022, A-level students, who are probably doing, ultimately, the most important exams of their life, would be in the situation of never having sat a public examination before doing those A levels. That would massively disadvantage them when it comes to, for instance, employment or university places.

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

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. Minister, most students, teachers and parents are in agreement that the fairest option facing you and our young people is to cancel GCSE examinations this year. In view of the importance, as you clearly stated, of the portability of qualifications and in light of Scotland and Wales unilaterally deciding to change their qualifications, is the Minister mindful not to recognise the Scottish and Welsh qualification in that regard?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I entirely recognise what is happening in Scotland and Wales. Scotland's Highers, which are, effectively, used for entry into university, are keeping with examinations, as indeed is the layer below. Scotland has made an adjustment that affects about 10% of its pupils, but it has made sure that its pupils are not disadvantaged when it comes to employment and entry into university.

Wales has produced what I call the David Copperfield solution. It has presented a few mirrors and made it look like exams have disappeared. However, as part of its proposals, which have not been particularly well sketched out, it says that one of the key bits of their assessment will be external assessments that are "externally set and externally marked". Presumably, if an assessment is being done externally, there is only one of two ways to be fair: either you allow schools to do that completely willy-nilly, in which case you are not putting them on a level playing field; or effectively, those pupils do it in exam conditions.

Wales appears to suggest that it is not doing exams, but it is doing exams. That is not just my opinion. For example, the National Association of Head Teachers in Wales said that Wales is doing exams under a different title. That is exams under a different name. Let us get to the kernel of the truth: all jurisdictions, including Wales, Scotland, England and the Republic of Ireland, for their main set of students, are all doing examinations in 2021. Northern Ireland is a small jurisdiction. We cannot afford to simply go on a solo run, particularly given that close to 20% of our students at A level do English board examinations. We cannot have a situation where we create that differential between students in Northern Ireland. That would be simply folly.

Rachel Woods (Green, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. The Minister will be aware that one of the key issues arising as a result of COVID-19 in general is effective and meaningful communication to ensure that education can continue in the safest manner for our teachers and pupils. Will the Minister detail what formal consultation he has had with teachers and trade unions regarding exams and school reopening in general since schools reopened in September?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

We met with a range of stakeholder groups, and from that, there are discussions that will take place on a regular ongoing basis with the trade unions. We also have a stakeholder group of school principals, and engagement has taken place on a couple of occasions with our officials and those principals on examinations in particular.

When the issues have been discussed, particularly with school principals, they have agreed that the best way forward is examinations. There is not a level of demurring from that. It is very difficult, and there is no perfect way to moderate centre-assessed grades if we were to use them. It has to be that one pupil in one school is on a level playing field with others as much as possible, given the constraints. It is clear that examinations, however imperfect, represent the best opportunity of a level playing field for students. They are competing not only to get their own grades but against others, particularly for university places and later for employment, and so that their grades can have a level of comparability. That is the case not just with their peers but when they are competing against others of different years, so there should be a level playing field in order that they can have a level of read-across within that.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Given the issue, I thought that it was important that a single Member from each party got to ask a question to the Minister. I know that another Member wanted to ask a question, but I will make it up to you next time, Robbie.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

5. Mr Frew asked the Minister of Education, in the absence of face-to-face contact due to COVID-19 restrictions, to outline how educational psychologists provide assessments at all stages of the 'Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs'. (AQO 1175/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. During the period when face-to-face assessment was suspended, the Education Authority's educational psychology service continued to progress stage 3, 4 and 5 assessments, which had previously been consulted on and agreed with schools, and worked closely with EA colleagues in statutory operations to provide psychological advice when requested.

The service was able to gather information from questionnaires and other screening tools administered via telephone or video call; telephone consultations with school sources, such as the school's special educational needs coordinator; previous assessments; scores from standardised tests or other attainment information; and analysis of the child's developmental checklist, with a view that this information may be added to at a later stage, where necessary. In addition, the service provides advice and resources to staff, as well as training to support children and young people who are struggling at this time. The service continued to provide support during the period of school reopening, and face-to-face assessments resumed in September 2020.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. How will the Minister and the Department manage the backlog, which I am sure is mounting, and how will that be rectified before school placement time, given that some of these children may well have to attend special needs schools?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

The Member says that the backlog "is mounting"; saying that it "mounted" might be a more accurate tense to use. Yes, there is no doubt that some of the pressures from COVID meant that the extent of involvement changed. As I indicated, certain things could carry on, but the involvement was limited. Work continues on managing backlog cases, with the aim of reducing that number. The particular focus is on children who have been waiting longest, and that can include a range of actions to reconfigure processes and workflows across offices.

Reducing the backlog will be achieved through a combination of EA's continuing process improvement work and additional short-term staff resource. A capacity and demand analysis is being finalised to define the short-term resource that will be required and where that short-term resource is indicated. For this year, a couple of days ago, additional money was granted through the monitoring round. There is short-term resource, but there is also a longer-term delivery model to try to ensure sustained performance within the 26-week period.

As indicated, delays have been too long, but we are starting to see an improvement. For example, a year ago today, 107 children were waiting a year and a half for the statementing process. By the end of September this year, no child was waiting a year and a half. Indeed, compared with the 158 children who, a year ago, were waiting a little over a year, that number, within a 16-week period, has come down to 10, and there is an 83% improvement in the number of children waiting over 40 weeks. Action has been taken. There is no doubt that COVID created problems, but there are new processes in place that will help to reduce that further.

Emma Rogan (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Minister, has there been an assessment of the impact of reducing statutory obligations in respect of special educational needs to what are best described as best endeavours, and what effect has that had on the children?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

The indications are that what we tried to provide has led to an improving service. There was not really any alternative. What could be provided during COVID was not necessarily going to be absolutely the same as it was under normal circumstances. That is the case across a wide range of services. Our aim and focus is to try to make sure that the backlog is cleared and that we reduce waiting times. We have seen an improvement in waiting times through a short-term intervention, and a longer-term plan has also been put in place. There is no doubt that the longer any child has to wait, the fewer the services that can be provided for them and the more difficult it is for them. That is what we are trying to combat, but we have also got to work, particularly during that peak period of COVID, against practical realities.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

That ends the period for listed questions. We now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions. Before I call Mr Allister, I announce to the House that question 10, standing in the name of Ms Paula Bradley, has been withdrawn.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

T1. Mr Allister asked the Minister of Education, who will be aware that the last week of the Christmas term in a primary school is a particularly exciting and significant week and whom he can imagine maybe excelling in the role of Wise Man, whether, given that, although that week will be different this year, schools will be preparing and children will be full of anticipation about in-bubble, in-class celebrations, he can assure the House that he will not countenance the closure of our primary schools a week early, as some have suggested, thereby bringing devastation to many kids looking forward to the festivities. (AQT 721/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

It was very nice of the Member, albeit he was probably being slightly tongue in cheek, to refer to me as a wise man. I am just glad that he did not refer to me as Herod. With regard to primary schools and post-primary schools closing, I am aware that there have been rumours floating about at times — I suppose this is Northern Ireland — but there is no substance to them. Schools will continue with their normal Christmas period up until the week before Christmas on that basis. There are no plans to close early. None of that has come from myself, the Department of Education or the EA; it is a little bit of whispering around the place. It is important that schools remain open.

It was also the case that, when the restrictions were talked about by the Executive, it was unanimously agreed by all the parties that schools should remain open. That is important from an educational and a social point of view. The Member is right that, although there will be certain constrained situations this year, it is important that various events around the nativity and a situation that I am aware of where a number of schools have booked a video photographer and suchlike go ahead. A number of things were missed out by necessity towards the end of the last academic year — those school-leaver-type situations — and I am keen to not add to that.

Purely from a health point of view, injecting an extra week's holiday before Christmas and effectively saying, "Here's a large number of children" and expecting them to simply stay at home would not work, with the best will in the world. That would probably create levels of socialisation which would be detrimental from a health point of view, so I am totally opposed to that. There are no plans to close schools early.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I am grateful for the clarification from the Minister. Can he bring the same certainty in respect of the holding of the transfer tests in January?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

Yes, as far as I can. As the Member is aware, the Association for Quality Education and the Post Primary Transfer Consortium, which hold the transfer tests, are independent organisations, so ultimately it lies within their hands and the hands of the schools that host the tests. Certainly, there have been levels of engagement so that, for example, all the health and safety measures will be put in place. They are perfectly prepared for the tests, so there is no intention for them to be cancelled. The Member makes a very valid point: the more certainty that we can give people, the better, even if sometimes the certainty that we give is not the exact certainty that some others would want in relation to some of those issues.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Mrs Dolores Kelly is not in her place and Ms Cara Hunter is not in her place.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

T4. Mr O'Dowd asked the Minister of Education, who will be aware of recent stories of concerns about pupils who are bubbling in their classroom but then get on to buses containing pupils from many schools — an issue that he had raised earlier in the year — whether there had been a scoping exercise to see where that happens and what measures we can take to ensure that it does not. (AQT 724/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

As the Member will be aware, as part of that we have moved to a situation that will hopefully reduce levels of transmission. For post-primary children, there is a requirement to wear masks on public transport and school transport.

We are up against practical restrictions, as about 80,000 pupils use free transport each day. I have instructed officials to work with Translink, the EA and the Department for Infrastructure. Although some additional money has been able to be levered in for additional transport, there are restrictions, and we need to try to make sure that we use that transport as wisely as possible so that, if there are additional pressures on some routes, buses can be brought in. We would also be happy to embrace some rejigging.

The Member also raises an important point about the threat that is out there. A lot of good work has been done directly in schools, particularly with bubbles. Schools do not represent a particular risk to pupils. The danger comes from the virus being brought into schools as a result of wider community transmission. With anything that can be done around buses and messaging, although messaging lies outside my direct control when it comes to, for example, issues around drop-off and pick-up, there is a role for all of us to be socially responsible. There will, however, be ongoing discussions to see whether any other action, such as rejigging of buses, can be done to ease the situation.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his answer. The media have to be careful in how they report infection rates associated with schools. They report them as being "in schools", but it is more important that they report them as being "associated with schools".

Have there been any discussions with the Department for Infrastructure on the provision of buses, particularly from Translink? There are also many private coach companies out there that are crying out for work. Is the Minister aware of whether contact has been made with them?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

There has been some contact. As part of that, the Executive have provided a small amount of additional money for additional safety on buses and to ease transport levels. That money is not, by its nature, infinite, so it is about trying to use it as well as possible. I have had good conversations with the Infrastructure Minister, and there is a commitment at departmental and operational level to work together to see whether any additional elements can be put in place.

One of the other issues, as we respond to events, is that the pattern of drop-off for children has adjusted a little. Some parents will have taken a view that they feel most confident delivering their children to and from school themselves, where they would not have previously, so all those things have to be factored in.

On Friday, among a number of schools that I visited, I had the great pleasure of visiting Jones Memorial Primary School in Enniskillen, which won the Fermanagh Sustrans award for active travel. Active travel should be strongly encouraged. I appreciate that active travel is not applicable to everyone or, indeed, given the weather conditions sometimes in Northern Ireland, something that can be done all the time, but, from the point of view of preventing the spread of COVID and creating a healthy body and mind, the more we can do to encourage the embracing of active travel, where possible, the better.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

T5. Mr Gildernew asked the Minister of Education, who recently announced £5 million for well-being initiatives in schools, when schools will be able to start spending the money on that important field of work. (AQT 725/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

To give a bit of a breakdown, the £5 million is effectively COVID recovery money. A total of £12 million was given for what I will call the broader academic side, most of which went into the Engage programme. About a quarter of a million pounds of that £5 million will go to youth services. A number of youth organisations have already been notified of an element of grant. The remaining £4·75 million will be divided among schools pro rata.

Given that the money will be spent on mental health and well-being, once individual schools have been notified of the money, which should happen very soon, there will be no barrier to them spending it. It is not an enormous sum for schools, but there will be complete flexibility in how they can spend that money, provided that it is used for mental health and well-being purposes. That might involve getting in some additional talks or counselling sessions. It could be to support the well-being of staff. While, naturally, we concentrate on the children, we need to ensure that staff well-being is also covered. It may be through additional extracurricular activities that they want to take place or even improving the school environment, perhaps, by buying equipment that would help. There is trust in schools to spend that money wisely and to determine, within their own budgets and situations, whether they might want to put additional money towards nurture, for example. They are the people on the ground. We give schools that same level of trust with the Engage programme.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for that answer. It is an opportune time to acknowledge the work that teachers do on the front line to protect the well-being of staff, the school community and children. How will the funding complement the work of the emotional health and well-being framework next year?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

The idea is that proposals will be brought to the Executive soon. We bid for an annual sum in the budget. To be fair, some money has also been provided by Health because of the linkages with that Department. The anticipation for emotional health and well-being is that £6·5 million will be mainstreamed into budgets that are provided mainly to schools. That will be for a series of projects. Some will be for work on the youth side and some for building resilience through the curriculum. Therefore, the £6·5 million will be for a range of projects, some of which will effectively be piloted because we want to see what works and what does not work. It will probably be more centrally driven, although schools will be able to take advantage of that. The £6·5 million will be mainstreamed in budgets, so what is there in 2020-21 will be there in 2021-22 and beyond. We may reach a situation where that amount of money expands. Nevertheless, it will be there.

The difference between the two is that the £5 million is from the COVID-19 funding. Therefore, it is effectively a one-off payment. To ensure that it is spent in year, schools will have flexibility and much wider discretion in spending that money than they will with regard to the £6·5 million, which will probably be directed into particular projects and processes.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr Doug Beattie is not in his place.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

T7. Mr Buckley asked the Minister of Education for an update on the children and young people's strategy and to say when it will be announced. (AQT 727/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

The children and young people's strategy has been created and is now being finalised. It has obviously been a long while coming, and some adjustments have been made down the years. It is now, I think, being circulated to Executive colleagues. To be fair, any comments that I have received from Executive colleagues have been, across the board, largely supportive. It should not be seen as in any way controversial, and therefore I hope that it can be signed off by the whole Executive before Christmas. It will produce a longer-term vision for children and young people.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that, whilst COVID-19 demands a lot of prioritisation from the Minister's Executive colleagues and, indeed, the Department of Education, it is still important that Departments continue to bring forward important existing priorities?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

It is right. Executive colleagues and I have brought forward strategic plans for the longer term. That has been across the board. There is no doubt that COVID-19 has taken up what we might call a "broad bandwidth" in different Departments. At times, that has led to immediate concerns having to be covered. In particular, with regard to the attention that can be given at different levels, it has meant that officials who deal with area planning, for example, have had to be diverted to COVID-19-related activities temporarily.

For all of us, there are priorities that we need to ensure are maintained. They might have been slightly delayed because of COVID-19. However, collectively, in the Department of Education and beyond, there is a determination to work through, from a Programme for Government point of view, a range of those priorities, some of which have already started to be brought to fruition, not just by my Department but by others.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

We can have a single question from Ms Martina Anderson.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

T8. Ms Anderson asked the Minister of Education, given that parents in Derry and across the North are concerned about putting their children through the transfer test because of COVID-19 and that any other cobbled-together test would be fraught with legal challenges, whether he agrees that we should just use applications. (AQT 728/17-22)

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

Apart from the fact that schools have a legal right to use academic selection, the tests are run separately. I understand that, given the current situation, everybody has concerns. A range of health and safety measures will be put in place. We are talking about gathering together about 10,000 young people across Northern Ireland, when, on a daily basis, around 300,000 go to school. It will not surprise the Member to know that I suspect that she and I have, shall we say, a divergent view on the issue of transfer. People can always make legal challenges on a range of things. I remember one of my predecessors — I think that it was Caitríona Ruane — predicting that the tests, first made by the Association of Quality Education (AQE) and the Post Primary Transfer Consortium (PPTC) 12 or 13 years ago, would collapse under the weight of legal challenges. We are a number of years on, and the tests are still here.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Order, Members. That concludes questions to the Minister of Education. I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments while others clear the Chamber. Do not forget to clean the spot where you were before you leave. Thank you.

Oral Answers to Questions — Finance

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

1. Mr McGrath asked the Minister of Finance what progress has been made on Civil Service reform, as set out in 'New Decade, New Approach'. (AQO 1186/17-22)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Good progress has been made to deliver the New Decade, New Approach (NDNA) Civil Service reform commitments. The Executive formed a subcommittee on responding to the renewable heat incentive (RHI) inquiry and reform in March 2020. It met in late July and last week and is currently working to complete the Executive’s response to the RHI inquiry.

A revised Civil Service code of ethics has been developed, including discussions with trade unions and Civil Service Commissioners. That will be finalised soon and become part of all Civil Service contracts of employment. It has significant changes on working for the Executive as a whole, on record-keeping and on raising and responding to concerns that are raised either internally or externally.

The review of arm's-length bodies is under way, with stage 1 complete. I am discussing with Executive colleagues the creation of a Civil Service reform team in DOF that will develop a wider reform plan. The Procurement Board will be reconstituted to include an expert advisory panel appointed from key sectors in the economy. I will consider last week's NIAO report on Civil Service capacity and capability and its potential for read-across to Civil Service reform.

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

I thank the Minister for his answer. The Northern Ireland Audit Office report on Civil Service capacity that you referred to highlighted major structural problems with the local Civil Service. How can we address those challenges without a head of the Civil Service? Can you tell us when that appointment will be made?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Quite a lot of the work that I have just outlined has been conducted without a head of the Civil Service, so the world does not come to an end without somebody being in post as the head of the Civil Service. A lot of work continues on through the Departments and through the Executive Office. Of course, I would like to see a head of the Civil Service being appointed soon. I know that the First Minister and deputy First Minister are looking at steps such as interim appointments. I think that they want to look at the role of the head of the Civil Service, and, obviously, it will be up to them to bring forward that process.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Minister, will review of the recruitment process for senior civil servants be part of the reform process?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Yes. A range of issues are to be reviewed in terms of Civil Service reform. It is a significant piece of work, and that is why I am putting together a reform team. It can scope out the broad areas and consult other Departments, Ministers and others on the full scope of issues that we want to see in Civil Service reform. There was a clear commitment in NDNA to do the work. It falls largely to my Department, which has responsibility for the Civil Service, and we are happy for it to be as broad as is considered necessary.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

In relation to the Northern Ireland Audit Office's recent reports on capacity, capability and attendance in Civil Service employment, how does the Department plan to take forward the recommendations — is he going to take forward the recommendations? — put forward by the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland in those reports?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Clearly, we will look at them. We have initiated a process of Civil Service reform. We are putting together a group to take that forward, and the report fits into that discussion. Of course, there will be recommendations in that report that will require to be addressed as part of a response to your Committee and the Assembly as a whole, and I am sure that the Department will look at that. However, it will dovetail nicely with what we intended to do in terms of Civil Service reform, as we agreed under NDNA.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

2. Mr Blair asked the Minister of Finance what assessment his Department has made of the potential merits of compensating small businesses that have maintained the salaries of employees even though they were ineligible for support from the coronavirus job retention scheme. (AQO 1187/17-22)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I have been concerned that the Treasury's eligibility criteria for its schemes have excluded some businesses, and I have raised that directly and repeatedly with Ministers in London. In particular, given the local restrictions that the Executive put in place in October, I called on the Treasury to make furloughing available immediately for all businesses that needed it. I recognise, however, there was a gap for businesses not eligible before the 1 November extension of the scheme, but that sort of wage support can be put in place only by Treasury. First, the scale of the funding required is huge. Ulster University has estimated that the value of furlough claims in the North up to the end of July was £890 million. That is beyond the scope of our budget locally. Secondly, making those sorts of payments requires access to HMRC taxpayer data and systems that we do not have and nor could we get. That said, I will continue to use all the levers at my disposal to support businesses that are impacted, as I did most recently in putting in place the localised restrictions support scheme, paying double the amounts available under the London Government's scheme.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that answer. Can the Minister provide an update on the number of applications to the localised restrictions support scheme and the number of payments in progress?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Yes. The number of applications is, I think, in the region of 12,000; the number of payments is over 5,000; and I think that in the region of over 2,000 have been rejected. More than half have been processed, and we are heading towards £20 million in payout on that scheme.

Rosemary Barton (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Minister, what was the outcome of the talks with Department for the Economy's officials over the weekend on the matter? Why has it taken nearly eight months to come up with the appropriate package?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Member will know, because her colleague proposed the restrictions last Thursday, that we were not aware until Thursday that non-essential retail was part of the Department of Health's proposition for restrictions. In order to come up with a package to address those issues, you have to know where the businesses that need support are. Over the weekend, we had, in essence, to come up with a package, and that is what we did. Yesterday, I brought to the Assembly a substantial support package across a range of Departments, including the Department for the Economy, to provide that support.

The funding available to us has changed. The furlough scheme has changed at very short notice. We knew just over only two and a half weeks ago that we had an additional £400 million. The restrictions themselves have changed the businesses that are required to close. All that has happened with little notice. As for the notion that we had months to come up with the schemes, I wish that we had had. I wish that we had known what restrictions would be in place and what funding would be available to us. I wish that we had known that the Treasury was going to change its mind abruptly on furloughing with no notice. I look forward to finding out tomorrow what will be in our budgets for next year when the comprehensive spending review is finished. It has not been ideal for planning, but we put together schemes and processes as quickly as we could once we had all the relevant information.

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

Thank you, Minister. I realise that we are working to get that money out to businesses. Is there a possibility that the support announced yesterday for company directors could be utilised by small businesses?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Member will know that the scheme to which he refers is being taken forward by the Department for the Economy. The scheme tries to address a section of our business community that has not received any support so far. I have made this point many times: as we are now, perhaps, getting on to the third level of support for some businesses, it is particularly acute for those who have not received any support to date. The Department for the Economy will roll out the scheme. I look forward to seeing the details, and I am sure that, if it can assist some of the businesses to which he refers, it will be of benefit to them.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

3. Mr O'Dowd asked the Minister of Finance how procurement policy will reflect the importance of security of supply, given the learning from the COVID-19 pandemic. (AQO 1188/17-22)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Security of supply is a fundamental in all public-sector contracts. It is essential that commissioners continually monitor and assess the resilience of supply chains as COVID-19 continues to impact on demand and production in the manufacturing sector. Security of supply will also be impacted by EU exit if the British Government fail to secure a trade deal with the EU. I plan to appoint an expert advisory panel from industry to bring fresh thinking on procurement matters and to advise the Procurement Board of lessons learned during the pandemic to help to build the resilience of government supply chains.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware of many small and medium-sized enterprises that were capable of responding to the shortages of PPE and other equipment in the health sector but were not able to do so because they were disadvantaged by the scale of the contracts. Will the new Procurement Board ensure that there is not only value for money but a mandatory provision for social value?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

From my perspective, the Procurement Board and the general procurement of contracts has to follow a set of criteria. However, the experience of the pandemic is such that security of supply has to be key whereas, previously, price was king with regard to procurement. The evidence during the pandemic was that there is sufficient capacity, skill and ingenuity in local manufacturing to meet some of the critical supply that is necessary for us on the island. Certainly, with regard to food, pharma and manufacturing, that critical supply exists here. One of the lessons that we have to learn across the island and between these islands is, as a consequence of this, that cheaper prices and goods on the other side of the world may be fine for saving some money, but they do not bring security of supply or assist local economic growth in the way that procurement should be tailored to do. There are a lot of lessons to be learned, and I look forward to the newly constituted Procurement Board getting stuck into the issue fairly quickly.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Minister will be aware of the recently exposed scandal of the obscene amounts of money paid to middlemen in obtaining PPE. Will he assure the House that the PPE that was acquired for and within Northern Ireland was free from any of those payments of obscene amounts of money?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Yes. Officials dealt with the contracts in China. I spoke to one of them, and he was amused at the amount of money that someone had received when the official was doing it as part of his public service to us. He did a remarkable job. The focus on the first attempt to obtain PPE here pales into insignificance compared with the obscene amounts of money that the British Government were prepared to pay to middlemen to achieve this. I would not say that it was panic, but there was certainly great urgency in securing PPE, and we were not alone in trying to source material in the Far East. That undoubtedly added to costs, but it also added to the complications in accessing those goods. It goes back to the original question from my colleague Mr O'Dowd about security of supply, knowing your suppliers and easy access to them being as important as cheaper prices in the Far East.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Does the Minister agree with the interpretation of the House of Lords that the protocol suggests that, when it comes to security of supply for those who supply key sectors such as health, we will be subject to EU regulations rather than the will of the Executive?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

That remains to be seen. There is much uncertainty on the Brexit issue. Legislation is going through the Houses of Parliament. The Lords has taken a particular view, and, from reading commentary, I know that the Commons intends to take a different view when the Bill comes back for further processing through the legislative framework.

All of it is unsatisfactory as far as we are concerned and, I am sure, as far as the Member is concerned. We should not be in this position a couple of weeks away from the exit date. The mess is not of our creating. It is certainly not the creation of the democratic wishes of the people in this part of the world. It is not of our creation in terms of the negotiations and the processes developed between the British Government and the EU. The sooner it is resolved with a greater degree of clarity, the better for all of us.

Rachel Woods (Green, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. Security of supply will also be impacted by climate breakdown. Minister, will environmental and climate impact be reflected in procurement processes and policies going forward to ensure that the policy is sustainable? For example, will a sustainability clause or criteria be considered for security of supply?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Clearly, one of the first issues is that, if you are not transporting goods from the far side of the world, there is certainly an environmental benefit. Having goods produced on this island in these islands certainly cuts down on transportation costs. I am happy to look at all the issues that the Member has raised and ensure that the Procurement Board, when examining these issues, considers all those matters going forward.

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

Will the Minister be more specific about issues on security of supply caused by Brexit? Have any orders been taken forward to forestall the uncertainty around 31 December? Will the Minister also briefly give an update on whether he has made any specific allocations or has been asked to make any for the procurement of the vaccine that, we all hope, is closer than we once feared?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

With regard to the first question, there is huge uncertainty about what our future trading relations will be like. That could challenge significantly the security of supply. We need to bottom out all those issues. As yet, the Executive are still fairly in the dark about how this will eventually fall down. The British Government have not been keen to share information with anybody outside their own narrow confines.

I am advised by the Minister of Health that the vaccine will be procured centrally in the British government system and supplied to us. The logistics of rolling out a vaccination programme will be a matter that the Executive will meet the cost for.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

4. Dr Aiken asked the Minister of Finance, in light of renewable heat incentive (RHI) disciplinary proceedings, whether any processes have been put in place to prevent those disciplined from being given official or semi-official roles during retirement. (AQO 1189/17-22)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The RHI disciplinary proceedings are ongoing, and I await their determinations.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that rather short reply. Will the Minister consider introducing legislative changes to ensure that civil servants or those employed by public bodies who have been subject to a disciplinary process but have, subsequently, retired and are, therefore, under the current legislation, exempt from sanction can be prevented from being re-employed as consultants on boards or in any other official capacity?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Member knows that the RHI process is ongoing and affects a certain number of individuals. We do not wish to speculate about what they may do now or in the future until that process has run its course. In general terms, he made a point that is worth looking at: the functions that someone who is subject to a disciplinary process can or cannot avail themselves of, as the case may be. beyond their term in public service, depending on the outcome of any such investigation. That is something that, as part of the review and reform of the Civil Service, we will want to address.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Minister, when will the Executive subcommittee on the RHI recommendations conclude its work?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The RHI subcommittee met last week and processed further some of the issues that we have been dealing with in the ongoing work on codes. It is our intention to bring that to the Executive in December for approval and clearance before Christmas recess.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Question 5, which stands in my name, has been withdrawn — Mr Blair, were you rising in your place about question 4?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. Will the Minister provide an update on the panel that was due to be set up following RHI to investigate ministerial conduct?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The formation of that panel is the responsibility of the Executive Office. I hope that that is taken forward as a matter of urgency. It is an incomplete part of the process that we have been dealing with in the Department of Finance and the RHI Executive subcommittee. I will bring that to the attention of the Executive because, clearly, if we are bringing that proposition to the Executive for completion in December, we want to see that panel in place as well.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I go back to the question of discipline. The last case that I can remember of a civil servant being disciplined was quite a serious one, and the punishment was a letter being placed in his file for 18 months. He was not hanged. Does the question of official or semi-official appointments after retirement not depend, to some extent, on the severity of the offence and the punishment?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Yes. Clearly, if there were a misdemeanour of some sort, it would depend on the level of judgement attached to that. The question that Dr Aiken posed outlined that that should be looked at. I am not sure that there is clear policy on that or an analysis of what level of misdemeanour would merit disbarment from particular future appointments or roles in public life. It pertains in other jurisdictions in these islands, so we should certainly look at it. Setting aside the RHI experience, I think that there should, in general terms, be a policy for the Civil Service and ongoing public appointments.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Question 5, which stands in my name, has been withdrawn.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

6. Mr Dickson asked the Minister of Finance what actions he is taking to ensure that £500 million of centrally held funding and any further Barnett consequentials are spent effectively in this financial year. (AQO 1191/17-22)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Yesterday, 23 November, the Executive agreed allocations of £338·1 million of the £500 million that was held centrally. There is also £150 million that has been set aside for the consideration of longer-term rates support. A further £26·6 million is being held in reserve in case there are further requirements later in the financial year.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Thank you, Minister, for your answer. You are responsible for assessing bids from other Departments and then issuing that funding. It is therefore incumbent on you to ensure that that money is spent, spent well and spent before the end of the financial year. In light of the lateness and lack of ambition of other Ministers, what action is your Department taking to ensure that money that is bid for from you and approved by you is spent appropriately?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

There is and has been a clear understanding among Ministers and Departments that, when they are asked to submit bids — that is how the process works — this is COVID-related money, so it is to be spent in this financial year and directed towards the three broad pillars of the Executive response to COVID: supporting vulnerable people, supporting the health service and supporting business. Bids must meet one of those criteria. We require Departments to demonstrate the area in which they want to spend the money and that they fully understand the requirement to have it spent out by the end of the financial year. We will continue to monitor that. Of course, the Member will know that the January monitoring of the general departmental spend will be coming through as well, and we may well receive further Barnett consequentials early in the new year. It has been a challenge to manage all of that additional money and deal with the stripped-down resource available to the Civil Service because of the pandemic. Nonetheless, it is incumbent on us to make sure that it is spent wisely in the right areas and spent out before the end of the financial year.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Minister, have the British Government responded to your request and the request of the Scottish and Welsh Finance Ministers for greater flexibility to ensure that the funding is spent fully and effectively this financial year?