Northern Ireland Assembly, 15 December 2020

572 contributions from 68 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Before we begin today's business, I remind Members that, as the Business Committee is not meeting today, there will be no lunchtime suspension. Business will continue until 2.00 pm, when it will be interrupted for Question Time.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Mr Chris Lyttle has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have up to three minutes to speak.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

It is my privilege to present this petition for free period products in schools. I do so on behalf of the 5,000 people who have signed it and the organising charity, The Homeless Period Belfast, which is a volunteer-led initiative that was founded and is managed by Katrina McDonnell. It alleviates period poverty by providing period packs and by campaigning for universal access to free period products. The Homeless Period Belfast's Menstruation Matters campaign is calling on the Education Minister to bring Northern Ireland in line with other parts of the UK by providing free period products in all schools. Schools provide free toilet roll, hand soap and hand towels in toilets. We would never accept children bringing any of those essential items to school, and period products should be no different.

The Homeless Period Belfast conducted a survey of 200 schoolgirls in Northern Ireland, and it found that 74% left school early or missed school because of a lack of period products; 87% said that a lack of period products negatively impacted on their attention in class; and 91% had used toilet roll as a temporary measure, due to a lack of access to period products. In a Homeless Period Belfast survey of 100 teachers in Northern Ireland, 60% had bought period products for use in their school. The survey also asked pupils how access to free period products would impact on their experience at school. One schoolgirl said, "I wouldn't miss as much class time and would feel a lot happier in knowing that the products are in toilets so that I don't have to feel embarrassed in approaching the school nurse or my teachers". Another schoolgirl said, "I dread getting my period in school. I pretend I am sick so I can go home because I am too embarrassed to tell my friends that I do not have any money for pads and can't ask my mummy because she has lost her job and is struggling to do food shopping for me and my brother. I use toilet roll instead, and I'd much rather use that at home and risk leaking in my own house than in school, where everyone could see."

No young person should suffer this experience or have their education disrupted by a bodily function as natural as their period. Free period products in schools would ensure that every young girl has equal opportunity to learn and achieve their potential. The Education Committee has written to the Department of Education in support of this campaign, and I will be glad to submit this petition to your office electronically for the consideration and response of the Education Minister.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Thank you, Mr Lyttle. Normally, I would invite the Member to bring his petition to the Table and present it here. However, the Member is aware that, in light of social distancing, I will ask him to remain in his place, and I will make arrangements for him to submit the petition to my office. I thank the Member for bringing the petition to the attention of the Assembly. Once the petition is received, I will forward it to the Minister of Education and send a copy to the Committee.

Ministerial Statements

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I have received notice from the Minister of the Economy that she wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that, in light of the social-distancing practices being observed by parties, the Speaker's ruling that Members must be in the Chamber to hear a statement if they wish to ask a question 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 that by rising in their place or by notifying the Business Office or Speaker's Table directly. I remind Members to be concise in asking their questions. I also remind Members that, in accordance with long-established procedure, points of order are not normally accepted during a statement or in the period for questions afterwards.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement, in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, regarding a meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in tourism sectoral format. The meeting was held via videoconference on 25 November 2020. I represented the Northern Ireland Executive and was accompanied by Minister Conor Murphy. The Irish Government were represented by Minister Catherine Martin TD, Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, who chaired the meeting. The statement has been agreed with Minister Murphy, and I make it on behalf of us both.

Ministers noted the efforts made to deal with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the tourism industry and acknowledged the importance of continued cooperation across both jurisdictions to address the impact of COVID-19 as the sector begins to recover.

Ministers noted the activity undertaken by Tourism Ireland to prepare for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and that the Department for the Economy and the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media will continue to support Tourism Ireland in this regard.

The Council received a report from the chairperson of Tourism Ireland on the work of the board since the last NSMC tourism meeting. The report outlined the work of the board in developing, approving and monitoring the business plans for 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 and the corporate plans for 2017-19 and 2020-22. Ministers also noted the progress made in delivering Tourism Ireland’s performance goals from 2016 to February 2020 and its activity during the COVID-19 pandemic since March 2020. The NSMC noted the progress made in developing the COVID-19 recovery planning framework — restart, rebuild, redesign — to support the recovery of the tourism industry.

The Council approved Tourism Ireland’s business plans and budgets grants for 2017, 2018 and 2019, and Tourism Ireland’s 2017-19 corporate plan, which has been agreed by the sponsor Departments and Finance Ministers. Ministers noted that Tourism Ireland’s business plan for 2020, including the budget grant provision, has been completed and submitted to sponsor Departments and will be brought to a future NSMC meeting for approval. The NSMC noted that Tourism Ireland has prepared an addendum to the 2020 business plan to guide its operations in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Council noted that the Tourism Ireland 2020-22 corporate plan has been approved at board level but is currently being reviewed in the light of COVID-19. An amended plan will be brought to a future NSMC meeting for approval. The Council noted the annual reports and accounts for the years 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018, which have been laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly and both Houses in Dublin.

Ministers noted that, on 17 December 2019, the Tourism Ireland board approved the granting of a general power of attorney as a short-term measure until further board directors were appointed by the NSMC and agreed that that power of attorney was to remain effective until the board meeting on 25 March 2020. The Council noted the continuation of the appointment of the chief executive officer of Tourism Ireland. It also noted recent developments in Tourism Ireland's staffing complement and that officials will take forward discussions on that and report back to a future meeting.

The NSMC agreed that officials from the Department for the Economy and the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media will review the existing work programme in the NSMC tourism sector and report back to the next meeting of the Council in that sector.

The Council agreed to meet again in tourism sectoral format in early 2021, on a date to be confirmed. I commend the statement to the Assembly.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Tourism is a very important sector in the North, and the pandemic has had a particularly hard impact on it. In the couple of months that the sector was able to open during the summer, there was a large increase in all-island tourism. In the light of that, what work is being done, particularly on marketing and the development of experience packages, because, even though we may have a vaccine online, next summer we are likely still to be dependent very much on domestic tourism to compensate for the loss of international visitors?

When do you expect the corporate plan for 2020-22 to be signed off?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for her questions. The marketing of Northern Ireland in the Republic of Ireland is, of course, a matter for Tourism Northern Ireland. We will take forward those issues with Tourism Northern Ireland.

You are also absolutely correct in saying that we have seen a 30% increase in visitors from the Republic of Ireland. That has been very important for supporting tourism businesses over what has been an extraordinary period for them. We will continue that marketing with Tourism Northern Ireland and will continue to use the Northern Ireland brand of "Embrace a Giant Spirit" in that market to encourage our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland to come and spend some time with us and support our tourism industry.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for her statement. The tourism sector is a vitally important one for us in Northern Ireland. How can we use the centenary year of 2021 to promote Northern Ireland as a tourism destination across the world?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I know that in the House there will be different views on Northern Ireland's centenary, but I think that we can come together and use the 100 years of Northern Ireland to drive forward the new economy of Northern Ireland and not just commemorate, celebrate or whatever way we want to look at those 100 years of Northern Ireland but look forward to the new economy of Northern Ireland. Tourism has an absolutely pivotal part to play in that.

In the next year — vaccine and COVID permitting — we will drive forward our marketing campaigns in GB, because we see there as being a pivotal market and one of the easiest markets for a return to tourism activity. We will drive forward our campaign with Tourism Northern Ireland in the Republic of Ireland and will be working with international tour operators. There is no doubt that Northern Ireland's centenary will play a key role in that marketing.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thank you, Minister, for your statement. Tourism is an extremely important sector in Derry and along the coastal route, the Wild Atlantic Way. Is the Minister working with the Irish Government to develop a continuation of the Wild Atlantic Way along the northern coast? The brand is so strong worldwide that we should be locking on to it in order to grow tourism in Northern Ireland.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for her question. I agree that tourism is extremely important for the north-west of Northern Ireland; it is hugely important. Just last year, Tourism Northern Ireland launched its own brand for the promotion of Northern Ireland, and that is Embrace a Giant Spirit. We have been going into the GB marketplace with that brand, and Tourism Ireland delivered, in September and October, a very specific campaign in the GB marketplace around the "Embrace a Giant Spirit" brand. That is what we have been using when we have been having our meetings with buyers from outside and other world markets, and that is the brand that we will be using. No doubt, the Wild Atlantic Way is a well-known brand, but the brand for Northern Ireland is Embrace a Giant Spirit.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you very much indeed, Minister, for your statement. I am aware that, in the past, Tourism Ireland has been accused of over-promoting Dublin Airport. Bearing in mind that the Northern Ireland Executive provide a third of Tourism Ireland's budget, what steps is the Minister taking so that at least our airports will be equally supported in the forthcoming years, as we deal with COVID and Brexit, as Dublin Airport seems to be? That seems to be an underlying, key element in what Tourism Ireland has been doing over the last couple of years.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Of course, Dublin Airport is an important route for international visitors into Northern Ireland, but I believe that we can support and develop our own airports. I have had recent conversations with Belfast International about routes to North America, and I have had conversations with Belfast City about a wider network of routes throughout Europe. In Northern Ireland's centenary year, we would like to explore how we, with our national Government, can support and grow that network of routes for Northern Ireland, and I have already taken up that challenge with Grant Shapps, the Transport Minister.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Thank you, Minister, for your statement this morning. Up to now, EU funds have made a considerable contribution to the whole tourism project, particularly in border counties. What action are you proposing to take to ensure that we maintain comparable amounts of support after Brexit, given the news yesterday from the Finance Minister that he expects the prosperity fund to have a deficit of some £70 million in year 1?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Of course, tourism was not specifically supported under PEACE or INTERREG in the last iteration of those funds, although there were environmental programmes that support the tourism sector. I hope that the wider range of funding will support tourism, particularly in border counties. There is some very important work to be done on, for example, tourism on the waterways. On the Member's wider question, I am in the process of preparing a paper on this for the Executive. Our national Government promised us a like-for-like replacement for European funding. I would like to see that being honoured, and I will do what I can to make sure that it is honoured. Of course, European funding is very important for the Department for the Economy in terms of employability and providing support for social enterprise and those who are far from the labour market, and we need to continue that very important work.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her statement. We are all very much aware of the challenges faced by the tourism sector in 2020. What more can Tourism Ireland do to bring life back to our major tourist attractions such as Titanic Belfast, the Ulster Folk Museum and the Antrim coast and, of course, to get tour buses back up around Stormont to see what goes on?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

The Member makes a really important point. I have been working with Tourism Ireland to make sure that Northern Ireland, as a brand and as a destination, is part of its campaigning. I have also been looking at its research on the general tourism area.

Let me share with you some of the conclusions that Tourism Ireland has come to on the research and insights for tourism for the next year. All the research indicates that holidaymakers are still planning and dreaming of taking their next trip away and that that is an important part of people's personal planning for 2021. The most influential parts in that will be the roll-out of the vaccine and driving down COVID transmissions over the next number of months. Summer 2021 is seen as the most opportune time for people to take further breaks. You are absolutely right to say that we need to drive forward that spend in Northern Ireland.

Over the last number of months, a campaign has been rolled out since August, September and very early October, promoting Northern Ireland as a tourism destination in the GB market. We allocated three quarters of a million pounds to that campaign, which was done, as I said, under the "Embrace a Giant Spirit" banner. That ceased in early October because of increases in virus transmissions. That campaign included talking to travel journalists, influencers, having relationships and media partnerships with 'The Guardian', marketing activity in Scotland and social and traditional media marketing. Those are the important things that were carried out, and we will continue to do that work.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Minister for her statement. She will be aware that the Narrow Water bridge project is gaining pace. When that project is finally completed, it will act as a major catalyst to economic and tourism growth in the wider south Down area. We need the region to go from one that people pass through to a region that people stay in. That can be achieved through extending Ireland's Ancient East marketing franchise to the north-east counties of Ireland, as opposed to the ambiguous nature of "Embrace a Giant Spirit". I am not even sure what that means.

Will the Minister commit to exploring that with Tourism Ireland and ensure that it will be on the agenda when tourism is discussed at the next NSMC on tourism?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

As someone who comes from south Down but who lives in upper Bann, I know that part of Northern Ireland very well. We need to drive tourism in that area forward, and I look forward to looking at, for example, Kilkeel harbour's plans for expansion as well as the Narrow Water bridge project. Those will drive tourism forward in the area, although real economic development would allow lorries to pass on the bridge, as opposed to the more limited form that it is in. Those are really important issues for south Down.

Tourism Northern Ireland has spent a considerable amount of time using the "Embrace a Giant Spirit" logo to sell Northern Ireland to international destinations. That has been going very well, and that is the logo that we will use for Northern Ireland in the future.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

At least 15 presidents of the United States of America can trace their family back to the province of Ulster. The migration of Ulster Scots down the Shenandoah valley had a huge influence, particularly in shaping the development of country music. How does the Minister's Department intend to tap into not only the huge diaspora that exists in the United States but into the interest in music and the arts as a means of marketing Northern Ireland as a tourism destination?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for his question. One of my first jobs in politics was to chair the tourism committee of Belfast City Council when we set up the Belfast-Nashville partnership. I still think that that is a very strong partnership for not just Belfast but wider Northern Ireland, given, as you say, the general interest in music and the historic connections with the area.

The greatest thing that we can do is to increase our connectivity to the area, not just for tourism but for business. One of our greatest FDI partners in Northern Ireland is North America, so I would really like to see connectivity enhanced. That is why I said, in response to Mr Aiken, that those are the things that we would need to explore to take full advantage of for the future, particularly in Northern Ireland's centenary year.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The importance of all-Ireland tourism has been mentioned, but the importance of all-Ireland tourism to Fermanagh is of the utmost importance. Initiatives such as the Shannon-Erne Waterway have provided a unique opportunity for visitors to travel through Leitrim, Fermanagh and Cavan by boat. Minister, you mentioned the potential of waterways. Have any commitments been made regarding further investment in the Shannon-Erne Waterway as a major tourism initiative, particularly in the linkages between Clones and Upper Lough Erne, which were set out in New Decade, New Approach?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

The Member asks a specific question, as well as making a general point. We can cooperate with our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland to ensure the exchange of tourists, which is important for the economies of both jurisdictions on this island. I look forward to working to ensure that that happens. As someone who has Fermanagh links, I understand the importance of that to the county. It is hugely important.

We have just completed our first NSMC meeting after I do not know how many years — I think that 2016 was the last NSMC meeting — and those issues will come forward in due course.

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

Minister, the Irish pub is critical to our international tourist offer on both sides of the border, but because of COVID-19, pubs everywhere, particularly on the island of Ireland, are in terminal crisis. What thought is the Minister giving to a long-term rescue and revitalisation plan for our pub industry? We have to be realistic in the next couple of months, so what is the Minister doing for the long term, with her colleagues in the South, to think about rescuing and revitalising pubs on the island? Furthermore, will she speak to the Communities Minister about licensing reform, including reform of the surrender principle, which could mean that we lose a load of pubs in the coming months if they do not feel able to reopen?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

The Member is quite right that licensing is a matter for the Minister for Communities, but that is something that we can look at together.

With regard to the wider pub trade in Northern Ireland, we all know that pubs have been enormously impacted on by COVID-19. As I have said many times in the House, no amount of grants, money or funding that we can provide is enough to sustain them in this repeated round of closures. I am finalising — it should be ready for the Executive on Thursday — the grant that will look at traditional pubs that have been closed, virtually continuously, since March. In the long term, revitalising our tourism and hospitality industries is the way that we will be able to help pubs to sustain themselves.

In 2019 in Northern Ireland, tourism and hospitality contributed about £1 billion to the economy and employed about 70,000 people. That is an enormous contribution to the overall economy, so driving forward tourism will help our hospitality industry to get back on its feet.

Rosemary Barton (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Minister, thank you for your statement and some of your answers. I heard your party colleague refer to tourism in a number of places in Northern Ireland. However, he forgot to mention his home county.

Minister, can you inform the House how you intend to market the beauty of the lakes in Fermanagh, especially to get trade that is coming into Belfast to move west into Fermanagh and, further along, to Donegal?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Fermanagh is indeed a beautiful county and is very important to the tourism industry in Northern Ireland. I was recently down in one of the large sites in Fermanagh overlooking a lake, and it was absolutely beautiful and wonderful to see it in all its glory.

We need to make sure that tourism covers all of Northern Ireland and is not concentrated on just the wider Belfast region or the north coast. We need to do two different things. It is about driving the product and the destination of tourism. We will always associate Fermanagh with the fishing, the waterways, the golf and the wonderful hospitality. In my home town of Banbridge in Upper Bann, we will offer a new tourism product next year with the opening of the 'Game of Thrones' exhibition and tour, which will be world-renowned. We need to develop product in the different regions and then try to maximise our audience with our promotional activity.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Minister, I noted in the press yesterday that the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media in the South, Catherine Martin, responded positively when asked by a TD if she would consider extending an invitation to Ireland to the organisers of the Tour de France. Minister, I hope that you will be aware that I submitted a question for written answer on 15 October — nine weeks ago — which I resubmitted on 2 November, asking whether, given the success of the Giro d'Italia Grande Partenza in 2014, you would work with your ministerial counterpart in the South, Catherine Martin, whom you met at this meeting, to put together a bid to bring the Tour de France to Ireland, in particular to my constituency along the north coast and the glens of Antrim. Minister, given that major events have the potential to drive participation in sport and contribute to trade, tourism, business, community pride, community engagement and economic growth, will you give a commitment that you will look at the issue and work towards bringing the Tour de France back to Ireland?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

There are a number of initiatives around at the moment. There is an initiative around a five-nations approach to the soccer and rugby World Cups. As you rightly said, we had an enormously successful time with the Giro d'Italia in Northern Ireland, and we have had contact with it again. We would be happy to look at whatever is proposed in relation to the Tour de France. These are enormous, world-renowned events that have a lasting impact. We need to take events tourism forward. We had an enormously successful Irish Open golf tournament at Galgorm in Ballymena, in September, and I look forward to engaging with the Royal and Ancient with a view to bringing the tournament back to Northern Ireland. Events tourism is hugely important. However, to strike a note of reality for the House, events tourism requires huge financial support. We would have to work as a whole Executive to ensure that the financial support is there to help to encourage events tourism.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I return to the question of the centenary. Unfortunately, much of the promotion has to rely on Tourism Ireland by virtue of the subordination of Tourism NI. Why, then, is there no mention in the statement of discussions about the centenary? In checking what the board of Tourism Ireland's attitude might be to such matters, I ask why the board minutes do not appear on its website.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

The Member makes an excellent point and one that I have made to Tourism Ireland. That is why I am still waiting for the revised plans.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

That concludes questions on the statement. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment or two.

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

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I have received notice from the Minister for the Economy that she wishes to make an additional statement.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I wish to make a statement in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 about a meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in trade and business development sectoral format. The meeting was held in Armagh by videoconference on 25 November 2020. Minister Conor Murphy MLA and I represented the Northern Ireland Executive. The Irish Government were represented by Leo Varadkar, Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Tánaiste. The statement has been agreed with Minister Murphy, and I make it on behalf of us both.

The Council noted the impact of the pandemic on society and on the economy in both jurisdictions and the measures put in place by both Administrations to support communities and businesses affected by the crisis and to assist economic recovery. Ministers welcomed the productive cooperation between both Administrations and InterTradeIreland on support for businesses facing challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and noted that InterTradeIreland will continue to provide support to assist businesses in coping with the challenges posed by the pandemic, particularly in the areas of supply chain management, health and safety and human resources.

Ministers noted the work being carried out to prepare for the end of the transition period and the implications for cooperation in the trade and business development sector arising from the UK's withdrawal.

Ministers welcomed the overall achievements of InterTradeIreland from 2016 to 2020 and recognised the valuable contribution that it has made through its trade and development programmes for small and medium-sized companies trading across the border and in both jurisdictions. Ministers commended InterTradeIreland for its work in helping businesses to prepare for the UK withdrawal from the EU and for its research on the issue. The Council recognised the impact of the innovation and technology programmes run by InterTradeIreland and its support for building relationships between companies and researchers.

The Council approved InterTradeIreland's business plans, budgets and grants for 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 and its 2017-19 corporate plan, which have been completed in accordance with agreed guidance issued by the Department of Finance and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and agreed by the sponsor Departments and Finance Ministers. Ministers noted InterTradeIreland’s annual reports and accounts for 2016, 2017 and 2018, which have been certified by the Comptrollers and Auditors General and laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly and both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Ministers asked sponsor Departments to consider InterTradeIreland's staffing complement, in consultation with the NSMC secretariat and the Finance Departments, and to provide an update to the next trade and business development meeting. The Council approved the appointment of Martin McVicar as vice chairman, Michael Hanley and Richard Kennedy, and the re-appointment of Florence Bayliss, Adrienne McGuinness and Micheál Briody, to the board of InterTradeIreland.

Ministers noted the progress and current position of North/South collaboration in relation to the Horizon 2020 programme and the achievements and current position of the US-Ireland R&D Partnership. Ministers noted that InterTradeIreland will continue to work with relevant stakeholders, including sponsor Departments, to explore new ways, both financial and non-financial, to maintain and strengthen research and innovation collaboration across both jurisdictions.

Ministers noted that the process for appointing a chief executive officer to InterTradeIreland has commenced, using the existing approved process and following consultation with the NSMC joint secretariat and the respective Finance Departments.

Finally, Ministers thanked Aidan Gough and Margaret Hearty for their work in successfully leading InterTradeIreland, as designated officer and assistant designated officer respectively, since they were appointed to those positions in September 2017. The Council agreed to meet again in trade and business development format in spring 2021. I commend the statement to the Assembly.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for her statement. In it, she said that it was noted that work was carried out to prepare for the end of the transition period. A couple of weeks ago, the Committee for the Economy received a briefing from officials on business preparedness. We were told that InterTradeIreland's all-island business monitor for quarter 3 showed that only 9% of firms had plans in place to mitigate the impacts of Brexit. In the light of that, what is being done by both the Department and InterTradeIreland to help businesses to prepare following the announcements last week on the protocol and the ongoing lack of clarity about the overall trade deal?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for her question. InterTradeIreland has a number of programmes that it has been using to help those businesses that it works with to prepare for the end of the transition period. That, as well as the work that Invest Northern Ireland is doing, has been important in helping businesses to prepare.

Just so that we could have a little bit of thought about that, I printed off, for the week beginning 7 December, the kind of things that, for example, Invest Northern Ireland was doing with businesses. They include working with businesses in the chemicals industry, fisheries and the legal sphere; looking at authorised economic operator status, the export of live animals and animal products, the moving of animal products from 1 January, inward processing relief, customs warehousing, and the trading and moving of goods in and out of Northern Ireland; and providing a large range of information and webinar support to businesses just last week.

Of course, the Member is absolutely correct: last week's announcement will have helped significantly, particularly around the movement of goods from Northern Ireland to Great Britain and the fact that there will not be excess paperwork and bureaucracy. That still leaves the issue of the Trader Support Service and the hope that it will work; that enough firms in Northern Ireland have signed up, as well as enough firms in Great Britain, to make sure that it works. It also includes the small derogations for a brief and limited period. Those are real, live issues that need resolution. It has avoided a hard stop but not provided that resolution.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for her statement. We all recognise the need for continuous support to help business recovery during the pandemic. Those of us who have been around for a while recognise the good work of InterTradeIreland, but what is being done to ensure that there is no overlap in the efforts of InterTradeIreland and Invest NI in supporting businesses?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for his question. He is right about the work that InterTradeIreland has been doing. I draw the House's attention to two particular aspects of InterTradeIreland's work. The E-Merge programme provides consultancy support of £2,500 to help businesses to develop online sales, marketing and e-commerce solutions. From April to June, it supported 140 businesses. The next phase of the programme supported 270 businesses. That made available almost £1 million of support to those businesses. There is also the emergency business solutions programme. Those are the kinds of things that InterTradeIreland is doing. It mainly works with much smaller businesses that are dipping their toe into the export market by doing cross-border exchanges. That is the value of the InterTradeIreland work, whereas Invest NI's work tends to be wider, larger and focused on a more international audience.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

What practical steps has the Department taking in conjunction with the Irish Government to maximise the opportunities that the protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland has given us?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

There is always room for cooperation. However, the Member should remember that, in the search for FDI, the Irish Government are our competitors. That is an important distinction. I do not say that in a political sense; it is a practical, economic reality. The protocol has given us trade that will flow between us and the Republic of Ireland and, indeed, between us and the rest of Europe, but it has given us significant disruptions to trade within the United Kingdom's internal market. I could not and would not support the protocol because I believe the interruption of the United Kingdom's internal market to be wholly wrong. However, I am also a realist, and the House voted to instigate the protocol, and we must ensure that we help businesses in Northern Ireland to navigate this complex scenario as best we can.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I declare an interest as the ex-chief executive of the British Irish Chamber of Commerce. The Minister talked about the success of InterTradeIreland, but the reality for many small and medium enterprises that have been involved with InterTradeIreland is that, in the past, it was seen to be especially bureaucratic and not particularly helpful in their development. Come 1 January, we will be through Brexit, and the protocol will be in place. Will she therefore commit to InterTradeIreland refocusing its present role of supporting the move towards Brexit to one of promoting Northern Ireland businesses, particularly those in the small and medium-sized businesses?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I am sorry to hear that the Member thinks that some of the processes of InterTradeIreland are overly bureaucratic. If he has details of specific instances that I can take up with InterTradeIreland, I will be very happy to do so.

We will all need to leave Brexit behind and move forward to promoting Northern Ireland as a really good place to do business, to live, to work, to bring up a family and to have a really good all-round education. That is what I will be doing in the next year.

I look forward, along with InterTradeIreland, Invest Northern Ireland and, indeed, the wider Executive, to being able to get back out into the wider international sphere to attend some of the fairs, particularly in Dubai and elsewhere in the Middle East, explore new markets for Northern Ireland and try to get that side of Northern Ireland's promotional activity going again.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Minister, I am pleased that you noted the progress made on, and the current position of, North/South collaboration through the Horizon 2020 programme. Given that that is an EU programme, what action are you going to take to make sure that such research cooperation can be continued on a cross-border basis before those whom you supported consign the EU to the scrapheap, along with the funds and support that we have received up until now?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I am not going to bite at the last remark, you will be happy to know.

Research and development and innovation for Northern Ireland firms are really important elements of how we build the economy. I have some brilliant examples of innovation and creativity by Northern Ireland firms, even during the COVID pandemic, such as how they linked up with our universities to produce goods that go to market in the current situation. Innovation and research and development are therefore the way forward. They will build the economy of the future, which is very important.

The United Kingdom would be wise to become a partner in Horizon 2020 and its successor programmes if it can prove that it is value for money for it to do so. Horizon 2020 and its forerunner, FP7, are successful programmes, but they are focused on very large businesses, and that has been one of their downfalls. One of the successes of FP7 was that one of its greatest benefactors was Israel, which, the last time that I looked, was not in the European Union. That kind of research, collaboration and buy-in to the programme is perfectly possible and feasible, and our Government have said that it is something that they would like to do.

One of the other programmes that we are supporting is the US-Ireland R&D Partnership. The Member will probably have noticed the number of COVID-related joint research funding applications that we submitted yesterday. As I said in my statement, COVID knows no barriers, so, in our search for solutions, we should not either.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

The Chair of the Economy Committee mentioned the officials who came to the Committee and raised the issue of the low levels of preparedness of businesses and firms, primarily because many of them have been focused on the COVID-19 pandemic, and rightly so. Minister, what engagement have you had with counterparts across the UK to ensure that businesses are prepared, particularly for the disastrous east-west trading implications of the protocol?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Those are huge issues for Northern Ireland. Fundamentally, the House should remember, when it thinks about the protocol and the interruption to the UK's internal market that it represents, which our Prime Minister instigated, that GB is Northern Ireland's biggest market by far. We sell more in the GB market than we do in the Republic of Ireland, the rest of Europe and the rest of the world put together, so any interruptions to that business will be very serious and very difficult. The announcements last week did help us with NI to GB trade and also helped us somewhat with tariffs. However, the best thing that can happen is that we have that zero-tariff, zero-quota deal so that we are able to trade freely in all directions; between GB and Northern Ireland, North/South and with the rest of Europe. That is massively important.

I took the opportunity last week to talk to the Northern Ireland Office Minister, Mr Robin Walker, about not just Northern Ireland's centenary — we are looking at promotional work for Northern Ireland in really important trade markets — but the £400 million funding that was announced. We should have a synergy between what the Northern Ireland Office is going to look at with that funding and what the Executive are looking at so that we can reskill and rebuild for the future.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Minister will be aware that the latest NISRA figures show that more businesses are trading North/South than to anywhere else, including Britain, and that the value of that trade is growing year on year. What discussions has the Minister had with her Dublin counterparts about protecting the supply chain and the intermediary trades that are involved in that trade to ensure that our businesses are not disrupted as a result of Brexit and that that growth area continues to grow?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Of course, the Member is right that more businesses trade North/South, but the largest impact and the largest volume is with GB. We need to remember that. I am hoping that we will be able to grow our markets North/South, east-west and throughout Europe and use the new trade agreements that the UK has signed to explore potential in those markets. I was really encouraged last week when I spoke to the red meat industry; the first exports of beef to America were from Northern Ireland. Those are huge opportunities for Northern Ireland in wider international markets. We must take those as part of the new opportunity that we will have in the next number of years.

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

The Minister is right: Brexit will lead to North/South and east-west disruption to Northern Ireland's trade. Whatever about the scant detail in the statement, Brexit will, unfortunately, cost jobs and lead to severe disruption. Since the referendum in 2016, and indeed the supply and confidence arrangement in June 2017, the DUP is the sole party in the Assembly that has had the power to force the whole UK into a soft Brexit and a closer relationship between the UK and the European Union, which would have been in the interests of not just Northern Ireland but all businesses and workers in the UK. Since the DUP did not use that power and has left us at the precipice of chaos, would the Economy Minister like to take this opportunity to express regret for the actions of her party? Indeed, would she like to apologise to the people and businesses of Northern Ireland for the situation that we face?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I —.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Order. I ask the Minister to resume her seat. I generally allow leeway, and I do not mind back-and-forward; indeed, when I am not in the Chair, I engage in back-and-forward myself and I enjoy a bit of sport, but I remind Members that, when they ask a question, they should, in so far as is possible, try to relate it directly to the content of the statement that the Minister has given to the House. If the Minister wishes to respond, I am happy to let her do so.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I am going to resist getting into too detailed a response, except to say that I thought that Sinn Féin was the only party in the House to rewrite history; I now discover that the SDLP is at it as well. What we need for Northern Ireland going forward is the ease of movement of goods between us and our largest market in GB, and between it and us. That is fundamental to the Northern Ireland economy and to jobs and families in Northern Ireland. That is something that I have worked at since I became a Minister. We had some easement of that last week with the agreements around the protocol, but I would much rather that we did not have to do that at all, that the UK's internal market remained intact and that we could trade as a third country with the EU on that basis.

Rosemary Barton (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for her answers so far. Will she clarify the support that transport firms have been given for transporting goods back and forth between Northern Ireland and the Republic and east-west and west-east to ensure that there is least disruption?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

The Member will be aware that transport is a matter for my Executive colleague the Minister for Infrastructure. However, if the Member looks at the things that Invest NI has been doing, she will see that significant work has been done on transport.

I will focus on one area of transport that is very important for Northern Ireland's economy, which is ensuring that Northern Ireland lorries taking goods to the south of England that prefer to use the Dublin to Holyhead route should be free to do so, given that Dublin would also like to use the transition agreement to allow lorries to cross GB for access to the EU. That is a really important issue for Northern Ireland hauliers and firms because around 20% of our goods go to market in GB in that way.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The statement says:

"Ministers asked Sponsor Departments to consider InterTradeIreland's staffing complement".

Does that mean more staff and more cost for InterTradeIreland? Given the perilous state of our trade and the threats to it with our main market, would it not be better now to refocus and create an "InterTradeUK"? Would the Minister work for and support such a body?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

The Member knows that to consider something is not to consent to it. That is exactly what the position is on staffing. Those issues will, no doubt, be discussed further down the line, given finance or direction of travel on the matter.

Yes; the Member and I are absolutely in agreement that trade with our biggest market — the internal UK market — is the most valuable thing for Northern Ireland. We must protect it and allow it to grow in future years. If the Member wants to write to me with his proposals for such a body, I will be happy to look at it and take it forward.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

That concludes questions on the ministerial statement. I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments. If you are leaving the Chamber, please make sure that you clean your surfaces and what have you. Thank you.

Assembly Business

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I have an item of business that I have to transact. Members will have in front of them the revised indicative timings for today's business, which show that the Minister of Education was to be on his feet at roughly 12.35 pm. It is now 11.34 am, so I think that I can anticipate the response that I will get.

The statement arrived in the Speaker's Office at 11.18 am. Standing Order 18A(2) requires that a written copy of a statement be made available at least half an hour before it is delivered in the Chamber. That has not happened in this instance, but, as I said, I suspect I know what the explanation will be. Therefore, before calling the Minister, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 10.45 am in order to allow 10 minutes for Members to familiarise themselves with the statement

[Interruption.]

Mr O'Toole, do you want to make a point of order?

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

Pardon me, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I did not mean to do it from a sedentary position. I believe that you said 10.45 am, but it will be 11.45 am.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

The record is corrected. We will return at 11.45 am, so that Members have the chance to read the statement before questions.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I may have missed your initial remarks, but this applies to two back-to-back statements effectively. We are getting 10 minutes to read two significant statements.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I will tell you what I will do: we will have 10 minutes for the first one and five minutes for the next one. All right? Grand. Ten minutes, folks. The sitting is suspended for 10 minutes.

The sitting was suspended at 11.36 am and resumed at 11.45 am.

Ministerial Statements

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Order, Members. I have received notice from the Minister of Education that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, it is my obligation under Standing Order 18A(2) to ask him to state to the House the reasons for the statement arriving with less than 30 minutes' prior notice.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the House for the late arrival of the statement. From the original indicative timings, I had anticipated that the statement would happen a little later in the day, and I have been caught slightly unawares and missed the deadline. I have been around this place long enough to know that timings will alter, but I humbly apologise to the House and, indeed, all Members for missing the deadline. My intention had been to brief the Chair and the Deputy Chair of the Committee prior to the statement. Obviously, because of the timings, that was not possible. I put on record that, subsequent to today's statements, officials and I will be available to the Chair and the Deputy Chair to discuss any details that are not drawn out by questions. I am happy to meet them after the statements.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for that, and it is now on the record. I call the Minister of Education, Mr Peter Weir, to make his statement.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I welcome the opportunity to make a statement to the Assembly. Today, I am announcing a further package of comprehensive measures, which, I believe, will ensure fair, inclusive and flexible public examinations in 2021. As I have said on a number of occasions, exams will go ahead but will be underpinned by contingencies for all scenarios. However, it is not business as usual. I know that our students are facing unprecedented disruption to their learning, which is why our qualifications will be different next year and why I will be taking exceptional steps to ensure that they are as fair as possible.

Over the past few weeks, my officials have been working closely with the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) to develop wide-ranging measures that will best support students in these unprecedented times. In doing so, they have engaged with the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI), school leaders, teachers and, very importantly, young people to seek their views on the way forward. I believe that the changes that I am announcing will provide young people with the clarity and confidence that they need to achieve success. The changes include not only more generous grading across all qualifications but significant reductions in the content that will be assessed in comparison with a normal year. I am conscious that our young people have faced incredible challenges as a result of the pandemic. In making these far-reaching adaptations, we will ensure that their lives are not defined or held back by the disruption that they have experienced in 2020.

I start by publicly thanking each and every teacher, school leader, governor and all the vital support staff who work in and around our schools for their incredible efforts. They have dealt with a wide range of difficult and exceptional issues. Thanks to those efforts, our children have been able to return to school and continue their education. In particular, I pay tribute to the work of the many dedicated teachers who continue to go above and beyond to give every pupil, whether in school or at home, a high quality education.

I recognise that this is a difficult period for young people. Many of them have been personally impacted by the pandemic and are particularly concerned about how there can be fairness in the examination process. I trust that the changes that I am announcing today will go some considerable way to reassure those young people that we will continue to support them and help them to succeed.

I reiterate: I will not be cancelling examinations. I have been clear about that over the past number of months, and my position has not changed. Indeed, with the COVID vaccine being rolled out across the country, I am confident that examinations will be delivered in summer 2021. The recent November series went extremely well and heralded a successful return to public examinations. I have heard the calls from some for me to cancel examinations. Those voices have been loud and clear, but I have also heard the quieter voices of those who are equally as anxious that exams go ahead and have urged me to stand firm. While some have called for centre-assessed grades — I entirely understand their position — I have equally heard from many who feel that the cancellation of exams will put school leaders and teachers under terrible pressure and put schools at risk of numerous appeals and litigation.

In recent days, I have also heard from many young people who want exams to go ahead.

Just last week, my officials met groups of sixth-formers across a range of different school types, in different sectors and in selective and non-selective schools, and many were not in favour of replacing exams with centre assessments. They expressed concern about objectivity and fairness and wanted the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and skills through the examination process. I am also conscious that our focus needs to be on the well-being of our children and young people. Cancelling exams would lead to further months of continuous testing, adding to the stress and anxiety experienced by pupils; in effect, it would be the worst of all worlds. That point was very well articulated by the sixth-formers.

Some other jurisdictions that are purporting to avoid exams are instead running them by the back door. In Wales, young people will face externally-set assessments, and they will be taken earlier than usual. The harsh reality is that there is no alternative to assessment or examinations in one form or another. The education system in 2021 must ensure that the cycle of over-testing is broken. I know that numerous concerns have been raised about what is happening on the ground with pupils. Over-testing is not healthy and is not in the interests of those pupils. That time could be better spent on concentrating on teaching the specification and preparing them for progression to the next stage of their education. With exams, pupils know that they will be assessed, the form and timing of that assessment, and they will be able to focus their learning on revision and progression.

As Education Minister, it is my job to weigh up these differing views, to consider all the evidence and to make a decision that, I think, is in the best interests of all the young people in our schools. It would be easy sometimes to make a seemingly populist decision, but being in government is about making the right decision in the interests of all. While, on the face of it, simply cancelling exams may seem like a good approach as we sit here today, I do not believe that it is the right longer-term approach for our young people. The best way to ensure fairness and comparable standards across all schools is to have a common assessment tool that is applied under the same conditions in every school and is marked externally to ensure fairness.

I genuinely believe that the experience of summer 2020 has shown us that exams remain the fairest method of assessing and awarding qualifications. We saw right across the UK and, indeed, in much of western Europe that, despite every effort and good intention, other forms of assessment are likely to be more inequitable. Cancelling exams would undoubtedly lead to different sorts of anxieties for young people and would put incredible additional pressures on schools. Therefore, I believe that it is in the best interests of pupils and schools that public examinations go ahead. Exams are the best way of giving young people the opportunity to show what they can do, and that is why it is so important that they take place next summer.

I will turn to standards. First, I want to reassure all our young people that we will take a generous approach to grading, similar to that recently announced in England. These are extraordinary circumstances in which you have had to complete your qualifications. In recognition of the challenges that this cohort has faced and is facing, I have decided that grading will carry forward the overall generosity and standards of 2020. That will ensure that the 2021 cohort are treated fairly, relative to their 2020 peers. Students will be awarded more generous grades in line with last summer's significantly improved results. Schools can be confident that my Department and CCEA have the tools to make summer 2021 exams fair and that young people in Northern Ireland will not be disadvantaged. The aim should be to achieve a level playing field for all candidates right across the UK.

I have also agreed that the collection and publication of school-level outcomes through the summary of annual examination results should be suspended for a further year in recognition of the significant disruption experienced by schools. The 2021 examination outcomes will not be used for accountability purposes. I want our school leaders and teachers to feel supported and confident as they prepare young people for public examination. That will lead to collaboration and cohesion across our system rather than competition.

In October, I announced a range of changes to CCEA qualifications, making a range of public health adaptations to ensure safety in delivery and reducing the number of examinations that pupils will take. I have also agreed that CCEA should delay the start of the summer exam series by one week to provide more time for preparation. In the October announcement, I said that GCSE candidates would be able to omit assessment of one unit of each of their qualifications, up to a maximum of 40% of each qualification. Taken as a total package, this represents a considerable reduction in the assessment burden and goes significantly further than adaptations in England, where 100% of the course will be assessed. Recognising the difficult public health circumstances and continued disruption, I have decided that pupils taking GCSE maths in January and June 2021 will be provided with additional support materials. These support sheets will relieve candidates of the burden of memorising all the information that they would normally have to memorise. I feel that they will be more prepared and more confident as a result, and this aligns with the recent announcement in England.

Today, I am also announcing significant changes to AS-level and A-level qualifications, which will sit alongside the earlier amendments to GCSEs. In recognition of the challenges of studying for level 3 qualifications in such disrupted times, I am taking unprecedented steps to reduce the assessment across all these qualifications. Young people will have the opportunity to omit up to 60% of their AS or A2 assessment. In a significant number of subjects, this will mean taking only one unit of assessment. The key requirement is that the unit or units assessed must comprise at least 40% of the AS or A2 qualification. At the centre of this reduction is choice. Our schools and colleges will choose which unit or units of assessment their pupils will take. Our young people will be assessed on topics and content about which they feel most confident and for which they are well prepared, allowing them to demonstrate their skills and knowledge to the highest possible level. In line with the emphasis on choice, individual candidates will be able, should they so desire, to take all their AS or A-level units.

I believe that these changes will relieve much of the stress that our young people are experiencing. The approach will allow them to focus on key topics for a small number of examinations whilst enjoying teaching and learning in other areas of the qualifications that will not be examined. This is a flexible and unique solution. It is designed to reflect the differing approaches to and experiences of teaching and learning across schools and colleges whilst retaining the rigour of external assessment that universities have told us is so important. Our universities have told us that, while preferring regulated, external assessment, they will take a sensible and pragmatic approach in these extremely difficult circumstances. The solution that I have presented today provides assurances to universities that the outcomes in Northern Ireland will be robust and comparable between learners whilst recognising the need to reduce the burden and safeguard the well-being and mental health of our young people. I will write to schools, pupils and parents tomorrow setting out my decisions and providing more details. I am confident that the changes announced today will help all learners to build their understanding and knowledge of these important qualifications.

There will be a reserve exam series for A2 candidates who miss exams through illness or self-isolating. This will remove any doubts or uncertainties and ensure that every young person has the opportunity to progress to education, employment or training in 2021. The reserve series will run in early July, immediately after the main A-level series. The timing is to ensure that results are available to the system and to pupils who wish to move into tertiary education. The results will therefore be available to every pupil at the same time. CCEA is working to develop a process that facilitates the award of grades to candidates who legitimately miss GCSE exams due to, for example, illness or self-isolation, thereby facilitating their progression.

I turn to the mitigations for different levels of disruption. Disruption to learning has not been uniform across Northern Ireland or even within schools and families. Last week, my officials met young people who had experienced vastly different levels of disruption. Some had missed significant periods of school; others had missed none. First, I reassure candidates who have been ill during the academic year that CCEA’s existing special consideration process will continue to be available and will operate as it has done in previous years. In addition, a process to consider COVID-specific special circumstances for young people will have to be developed. I will therefore explore the possibility of a COVID allowance or tariff for young people who have missed a significant number of days of face-to-face teaching due to self-isolation. This will allow specific account to be taken of the variations in disrupted learning since September. To be clear, I reiterate that this will be separate from and additional to the existing special consideration scheme.

I have asked CCEA to work closely with other awarding bodies to develop a UK-wide approach to any potential scheme. It is, as with all of these things, important that our students are not disadvantaged in that respect compared with their counterparts in other jurisdictions.

In conclusion, I thank the House for the opportunity to address it on these important issues. My Department is working hard to make sure that we take into account the effects of the pandemic; to make the best contingency arrangements that we can; and to make sure that exam results will be fair and command public confidence. Fairness to pupils is my priority, and it will continue to be at the forefront of every decision that is taken in the lead-up to exams next summer. Exams are the fairest way of judging students' performance, so they will go ahead underpinned by contingency measures developed in partnership with the sector. In these exceptional times, I have taken exceptional and unprecedented steps to ensure that our young people are supported to progress in education, training or employment.

Let me make one further commitment to our students. Across GCSEs, AS levels and A levels, candidates will be awarded a grade based on their performance in the units of assessment that they have taken. Their work will determine their final marks and grades. There will be not be, this year, the use of algorithms or anything that goes beyond that. Again, I commend all our school leaders and teachers for their efforts in these difficult times.

In closing, to all those in our schools — staff, pupils and their families — at the end of what has been a very difficult year, I send my best wishes for a quiet and restful Christmas, and I wish every success to all our students in 2021.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

The Education Minister's inaction, indecision and U-turn caused grading chaos in 2020, so we are entitled to expect more than a statement that was late in its arrival and vague in its commitments. The statement mentioned generous grading, reduced content, support sheets, a COVID allowance tariff and a UK-wide approach, but it was without any great detail on any of those commitments. Other jurisdictions have taken decisive action to cancel or modify significantly examinations in 2021, owing to the unprecedented disruption to learning. In the week commencing 12 October, approximately 50,000 children were unable to attend school. We know that some pupils are on their fourth period of self-isolation, and many staff are in self-isolation as well. What level of COVID-related pupil absence is the Education Minister willing to accept before introducing moderated teacher grading and centre-assessed grading for 2021?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I wish the Member a very happy Christmas as well.

I will respond to some of the issues that he has raised. He mentioned other jurisdictions. Scotland has made a decision to use some form of assessment but has not come up with the details of that. Wales's position is one of flux, where it is effectively introducing examinations by the back door but has still to hammer out a reasonable level of detail. England has made some announcements but, again, still has to sketch out some of the details. As I have said, we also need to make sure that none of our students is in any way disadvantaged compared with other students.

The Member mentioned the levels of absenteeism, and the position is that there are always a number of pupils who will be missing at any particular time. He mentioned a particular week: in that week, for those whose absence was related to the COVID situation, 2·4% of the school population were isolating because of some level of illness, while another 5%, roughly speaking, were not there because they were isolating because of contacts. That was the peak point. There will be other students who were missing during that time for a range of reasons. Let us remember, however, that, although it is important that the situation be taken into account, those pupils were receiving remote learning and other learning throughout. Let us not create a situation in which we simply equate students' not physically being in school on a particular day with not working hard at home. I want to make that fairly clear.

The Member mentioned centre-assessed grading. Anywhere that that has happened, grades have been mitigated. Again, that creates one of the problems that we saw in 2020, because it is not fair across the system. Schools will take different approaches. Schools may well have a situation in which they give particular grades to their pupils, knowing that they are likely to be reduced. We would be faced again with the spectacle of a situation where a pupil gets a grade that differs from what their school gave them — generally speaking, it will be lower — and that will create a level of conflict. It is also the case that, to reach that grade — this is one of the dangers that could happen in the system — you will have six months of continuous assessment where pupils feel that they are under the microscope every day. There is no route out where there will be no examinations. The alternative will be a range of examinations, possibly on a weekly basis, by schools, because they will feel concerned that a disgruntled parent might try to sue them, for example.

We need something that is recognised clearly and has the support of universities but is also fair to students. I appreciate that, in current circumstances, getting something that is fair across the board is difficult to achieve. If you make a move in one direction, it is maybe fairer for some and less fair for others. The mitigations that I have put forward go further than what is in England. They also avoid, quite frankly, the confusion in Wales — they will have external examinations but will just not call them external examinations — or the uncertainty that will happen in Scotland, which, in any event, has a completely different examination system. This is the fairest way forward.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for this work, for all the hard work that has gone into the preparation of the statement and, indeed, for the initiatives that he is prepared to undertake. Can I just seek total clarity? Minister, you mentioned consultation in your statement and said that your officials had worked extensively with CCEA and that you had engaged with the Education and Training Inspectorate, school leaders, teachers and, importantly, as you said, the young people or pupils themselves to seek a way forward. Will you clarify that the new assessments at AS and A2 level will effectively be reduced by up to 60%?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

Yes, extensive work has gone on. Obviously, because of the nature of this, it has had to go on in the background with CCEA and the ETI. We have worked with a group of school principals and stakeholders drawn from a range of schools of widely differing nature in terms of sector but also in terms of whether they are selective or non-selective and whether they go to sixth form or not. There are a range of things. This has been teased out on a number of occasions and discussed back and forward, making sure of what is doable. There is no point in producing some idyllic solution that then cannot be implemented on that basis. Also, significantly, last week, my officials met confidentially within a number of schools to talk through with the sixth-formers what they saw as the options. Again, there was strong support for this type of route in connection with that.

The issue is — this should not be forgotten — that, when talking about A levels and AS levels, we are putting a minimum standard of a 40% floor. Some schools will take a different view of which units they would like to see assessed. We appreciate that some will have had different levels of disruption at different times of the year. They will want to ensure that the units that they take will be ones that relate most directly to their circumstances and their children. That will lift the burden of up to 60% of the assessment from children at A level and AS level. There is a different arrangement for GCSE, where units have been taken out at a slightly earlier stage, but, again, there will be a considerable reduction there. That runs alongside some of the other measures, including the generosity of grading.

Karen Mullan (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for bringing the statement to the Floor today to give students some assurance before Christmas.

Minister, I heard you say before that nothing replaces in-classroom learning. Following on from the Chair's point, your answer to him was that those students are working hard at home, but we know that there is very much a varied learning experience at home, particularly for those who have special educational needs and need that in-classroom support. For those students and the others who have missed up to eight weeks and will continue to be disrupted, when will you publish the full details of the special circumstances?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I want to work with colleagues across jurisdictions on that. You make a very good point about where it will be in the individual side of things. The system-wide adaptations will go a long way to meeting that, so if a student is expected to be assessed only on particular units — they will know from their school very early on which units those are — they are, effectively, being assessed on 40% of the course. That removes more than half the course from the assessment, which means that even with considerable time missed, there is still that level of compensation.

It is important to consider special circumstances, because if we reach a point where it is possible that that is universal across jurisdictions, we should try to create a situation where our students are not disadvantaged. One option is that some additional tariffs or marks could be given to students who missed a particular length of time, and if we reached a point, for example, where our students are getting a much higher tariff than anyone else, there would be a suspicion in universities and other places that, effectively, a Northern Ireland or CCEA qualification has come from an easier exam than anywhere else.

We also have to take into account in the comparability that we have about 20% of our students at A level and AS level sitting exams set by boards that are outside Northern Ireland. I should make it very clear what can be delivered on. I appreciate that sometimes this has probably been a bone of contention between me and the honourable Member for Upper Bann, but, at present, we want to make sure that children are also treated equally to one another.

On the flip side of the coin, if we were simply to go on a solo run with special circumstances and did not go as far as other jurisdictions, achieving particular grades would be harder in Northern Ireland than anywhere else. A bit of work needs to be done so that we can reach a common position, if at all possible, between different jurisdictions to try to make sure that special circumstances are reflected so that no one is disadvantaged in future employment, for example, or a university place. Sometimes you get different levels in university places. We want to make sure that our students are given that level playing field.

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

I thank the Minister for the statement. Minister, in order for your Department to engage in evidence-based policymaking for these examinations and recognising the potential for differential adverse impact, it will be necessary — this is the view of the Children's Law Centre — for your Department to screen the policy and carry out a full equality impact assessment of each available policy option, including having proper consultation with affected young people and their family, educators, exam bodies and other affected stakeholders. Have you done that, Minister? A human rights impact assessment and a rural impact assessment should also have been conducted. Have you done those also?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

All necessary procedures will have been gone through, and we have done that level of consultation. There have been accusations that we have delayed this. The Member needs to be aware that we have been trying to ensure that this has been got right. We could spend the next six months consulting on all these things, but that is not going to be a great deal of use in giving some certainty to pupils. We need to ensure that what we have is robust and has a broader level of buy-in. Indeed, in our adaptations, we have gone a bit further than England while ensuring that those are still acceptable to universities. We have given a level of clarity that is not there in other jurisdictions.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I join the Minister in thanking our teachers for their hard work. I wish them all a happy Christmas, and you, too, Minister. There is some good news in today's announcement on A levels and the 60% omission, which I have been pushing for. However, I have a 15-year-old constituent who has missed 18 weeks of face-to-face teaching in Lagan Valley, and his father is at pains to understand how that lost learning will be mitigated. Given that we have 60% omission at A level, why can we not have 60% omission at GCSE, where, actually, there is no equity across the subjects?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

The problem with reduction there is trying to get something that is equitable. The position on GCSEs was declared earlier through the unit omission. That means that the same units can be omitted across the board so that everybody is on a level playing field with that.

It should be noted that, in trying to reach something that is equitable this year, perhaps the focus, at times, has been on the grading of A levels and AS levels. The generosity on grading will also take into account the 2020 standards for GCSEs. As I said, there will be further work on individual special circumstances. We need to make sure that the coverage at GCSE level enables pupils to progress to AS levels and A levels, so there has to be a level of grounding there.

Across the board for specific GCSE subjects, the particular units omitted have already been worked on, and schools have been working on those. If, at this stage, we were to say, "We can take further units out", although clear guidance was given to schools to try to, as much as possible, do things in the same order, we would be omitting some units that some schools might have dealt with extensively and others which they would not have dealt with. Therefore, it is not quite the same position. Again, we are talking about up to a 40% omission on GCSEs as well.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

Thank you, Minister, for your statement. Minister, can you clarify two points? Can schools and school leaders now choose which units they wish their pupils to be examined on? Secondly, can you confirm that no algorithms or z scores will be used to calculate a student's grade and that it is all now based on the student's performance? Is that the case?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

It is. The answer to both questions is yes. On A levels and AS levels, schools will make that choice. That is, in part, because there will have been different levels of disruption in schools, and because a large section of a year group may have been off when a particular component of a course was being covered. Schools will be allowed that choice and to concentrate on some of the things that have already been taught. Not every school will have taught things in the same order, so this will enable flexibility to be put in place. As I said, there may still be a very small number of students who want to do everything, and there will be an opportunity for them to do that.

On the issue of the calculations, if someone is sitting one paper, they will simply get the mark that they get, and the grade they get from that paper will not be adjusted by algorithms, which are a mathematical formula, and which were seen to be externally put in place, and that created great concern. Similarly, what is normal for a missed unit is that a Z score is used, which can adjust where a pupil will be. The only adjustment that will be made is if someone is doing, for instance, two papers and those papers are weighted differently, so you may get a situation where, to make up the 40%, two units are used. One unit would normally be worth 20%, and the second worth 30%. In those circumstances, the 30% unit will count 50% more than the 20% unit, if you understand what I mean. The marks that they get in the exam will be scaled up, if you like.

People can be assured that there will not be an intervention from above. A lot of problems and concerns were created because pupils expected to get a particular grade and then found that, as a result of whatever calculations had been put in place — this was particularly true for small cohorts — they got a different, often lower, grade than anticipated. Although, in some cases, it produced a higher one. The change means that a grade will be awarded purely on how a student performs in an examination.

Nicola Brogan (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, much of the speculation and media interest in today's statement has centred on GCSE and A-level students, but I want to ask, on behalf of anxious BTEC students, what these arrangements will mean for them, given the massive coursework burden that they have had to shoulder despite months of disruption to their education.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I am a little bit restricted in what I can say, as BTECs, and, indeed, the vocational side, come under the control of the Department for the Economy, although I suspect that there will be some read-across. We have been working with the Department for the Economy, but is not my place to make an announcement on behalf of the Economy Minister. Clearly, there will be implications. Across the board, work has been ongoing on how BTECs are reflected, not just here but in other jurisdictions to make sure that we have a fair reflection of the circumstances for BTEC students as well.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I join the Minister in thanking all the staff in our schools across Northern Ireland for their work and dedication in this most difficult year.

Minister, I welcome the engagement; it is hugely important. You mentioned that no child in Northern Ireland should be disadvantaged across the United Kingdom. You also mentioned mitigations for students who have had to endure significant remote learning or, sadly, have been ill during COVID. I ask the Minister to confirm that he is looking at other scoping mitigations, on top of those that are already in place from CCEA, that would ease the already difficult circumstances that young people have found themselves in throughout the pandemic?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

Yes. On the special circumstances, I want us to have, broadly speaking, a level playing field across the UK. We need to give a good deal of thought to the mitigations, as there are things that can be put in place, which will facilitate students taking those examinations and protect their opportunity to do so. The individual measures that can be put in place will need to be examined.

Today's statement is about providing system-wide mitigations. They go a long way in covering individual circumstances, however, there will be those who will still be disadvantaged. It is important that a level of protection is put in place, and that will require further work. Rather than give something which is definitive and may end up being wrong, we want to work with colleagues across different jurisdictions and exam boards to put in place, ideally, something to meet special circumstances. It is accepted by the Minister for Education in Westminster, in that, as much as possible, if we can reach a UK-wide position on special circumstances, that would be of advantage to all pupils. Depending upon what direction you go in, there is disadvantage in either direction if there is not parity across the board.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his statement and answers thus far. This has been an awful year for students, particularly first-year students in our further and higher education institutions. What consultations has the Minister had with the Minister for the Economy, colleges and universities on today's statement?

If students are being assessed on 40% of the course, is there a danger that they are taught 40% of the course, which limits their horizons for the next phase of their learning at colleges and universities?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

There is no perfect solution, but work has been ongoing, particularly with universities, to try to make sure that there is something in place that is acceptable on grading. While certain decisions lie within the remit of the Minister for the Economy, I will be working alongside her on those issues.

The Member makes a valid point about the level of assessment that is there. The aim would be to try to ensure that the full course is taught, however, there is a degree of danger that it will lead to a level of skewing of the course. To be fair, in all of these there is some level of difficulty with any potential solution. I suspect that it will mean that areas that will be directly examined will have a higher percentage level of concentration from the schools. That becomes a certain level of natural consequence. The aim is to ensure that the full course is covered, and we are trying make the best of the situation.

I acknowledge that this has been a difficult year for everyone, particularly students. However, while there is hope on the horizon, we are not out of the woods yet.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement and his answers thus far. There have been disproportionate adverse impacts on children's education as an outcome of the pandemic. The gap is widening. Children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds and children with special educational needs are falling further behind. How do your proposals on exams address that? Can you confirm that the algorithm fiasco from earlier this year will not be repeated?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I am very happy to confirm that. As much as we can get fairness and objectivity in the system, it can still depend upon somebody giving a subjective opinion or using a mathematical calculation which adjusts according to how one school does compared to another school. That is a problem that would be there with moderation and centre assessment grades (CAGs).

I can give the Member an absolute assurance on the algorithm. While I am sure that not many of us would be algorithm experts, no algorithm will apply z scores this year. It will be purely on the basis of what a student achieves directly on their own merits and marks, against a backdrop of generosity.

The Member is right about differential disruption. Ensuring a considerably reduced level of content goes a long way to meeting a lot of those measures. As I said, I want to explore, hopefully on a cross-jurisdictional basis, how we can apply special circumstances for individual students. That would be in addition to the current provisions. As I am sure the Member is aware, there are already mechanisms whereby, if someone in a — let us call it — normal year has special circumstances through illness or whatever, provision can be made. Anything that we do this year will be on top of that. For instance, if someone is ill for another reason, we need to see how we can adapt that, particularly for those who missed out because of COVID.

Rosemary Barton (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Minister, you spoke about students not being disadvantaged if they wanted to go to universities in England, Scotland, Wales etc. As you will be aware, quite a few students in Northern Ireland still like to study at Trinity College Dublin. Have you had any discussions with the universities down there about what would be acceptable?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I would have to get more detail on that. At the moment, while things are a bit unclear in the Republic of Ireland, the suggestion is that they will be doing all the Leaving Cert by way of examinations. We believe that a system that is, broadly speaking, acceptable to universities should be acceptable across the board. However, there will be further engagement as we move ahead, particularly with our colleagues in the Republic of Ireland.

There is a North/South Ministerial Council meeting on Friday, so I may be in a position then to raise that issue directly with my opposite number, Norma Foley. Unfortunately, the meeting is not in the beautiful city of Armagh. I say that just to make sure that Mr McNulty is paying attention. We will be doing the meeting via Zoom, but that will still enable that level of engagement.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Thank you very much, Minister. I declare an interest as the mother of a young person who is going through their A2s shortly. You must feel for me.

Minister, you mentioned the COVID allowance or tariff. When will that be published? Will it, for instance, specify how many missed school days will be necessary for a pupil to receive the COVID grade tariff? Young people need confidence now, and if we can publish such specifications, it would help them.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I understand that. That is one of a number of options, and probably the most likely option. The point that I am making about any tariff is that we want to make sure that it is, if at all possible, universal. I sympathise with you being the mother of an A2 student, but, at A2 and A level, about 20% of our cohort will do that from boards that are outside Northern Ireland, so we want to make sure that everybody is treated fairly. If, for example, we end up with a COVID tariff and that is the route that we go down for special circumstances — we will need to work with other jurisdictions — I do not want our results to be viewed with suspicion by employers or universities because they have a more generous tariff than elsewhere or — I am sure that this would be of grave concern — if we had a tariff that applied at a much lower level than other jurisdictions, that we would disadvantage our pupils in terms of grades.

There is work to be done between boards, with Ofqual and between jurisdictions to try as much as possible — it may or may not be 100% possible — to reach a common position across jurisdictions.

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

Given what the Minister has said about the need to introduce special circumstances and the fact that CCEA will be responsible for dealing with a vast and, I am afraid, inevitably chaotic process of appeals, first, is he confident that CCEA has the resources to deal with this unprecedented and Byzantine process that is going to be inflicted on it and the young people of Northern Ireland? Secondly, Minister, can you confirm that the upshot of your statement is that, if Gavin Williamson, who is widely thought to be an incompetent and chaotic Secretary of State in England, has to perform a U-turn on exams proceeding in England, we, in Northern Ireland, will simply follow what he has done?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I always want to make sure, above all else, that our students are not disadvantaged. Obviously, at times, we will have to look at what happens in other jurisdictions. We cannot have Northern Ireland as an outrider. However, England's position on examinations has been made very clear. Some examinations went ahead very successfully in November, and we anticipate that the pandemic will not be at as great a level next summer as it was at that time. I should say, from a historical point of view, that, while being accused of being Byzantine is obviously a form of insult, that was a very successful empire for many centuries prior to its collapse

[Laughter.]

Members of the DUP are sometimes accused of harping back to the 17th century but there may be more classical civilisations that we could look to as well.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

The Minister ended his statement by saying:

"Fairness to pupils is my priority".

He also stated:

"Over-testing is not healthy"

for pupils.

Can the Minister explain how it is fair or, indeed, healthy that post-primary exams will go ahead in the new year despite pupils being in the middle of a health pandemic, with many thousands having so much time off school and missing so much teaching, not to mention the serious concerns that exist around children's safety that his Department has still not addressed?

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Order. For the second time today: post-primary transfer was not in the statement issued by the Minister. I have to remind Members that questions should relate to the statement. The Minister is at liberty to answer that question if he wishes, but he does not have to.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

At the broader level, we will always make sure that any examinations take place in accordance with public health guidelines. As the Principal Deputy Speaker said, post-primary transfer is not the subject of today's statement. However, from a health point of view, if we are talking about roughly 300,000 pupils being in each day, accommodating 10,000 on a particular day does not seem to be beyond the bounds of possibility. I want to make sure that all our examinations are as fair as possible. We have taken very far-reaching decisions today on reduction in course content and on grades, which will create a unique circumstance. It will mean that pupils in 2021 will be in a very different position from those in 2019. That is where an accommodation has to be reflected. Again, I thank the Member for his good wishes.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

Thank you, Minister. Given the process that you have outlined, can we assume that students will perform better than would have been expected? How will this affect admissions to FE and HE, particularly for competitive courses? Does it also open up options for students who did not think that they would perform as well to apply to different courses? I ask that in the midst of the university admissions process. Lastly, how are we supporting teachers? This seems quite chaotic, and I understand that today's statement may be news to them. How will we support teachers through the next six months?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

There are a number of points there. Yes; it may mean that because there has been a shift in where the boundaries are. What it does mean is that those who are sitting exams in 2021 will be put in a very similar position, at least in terms of eventual outcomes, to those who sat exams in 2020. Some people will not have taken up university and FE places in 2020. They may have deferred entry or simply felt that, "I do not want to apply at this stage because I will not be getting the full university experience". It will mean that those who graduate in 2021 and those who graduated in 2020 will be on a level playing field with each other.

Ms Sugden mentioned teachers in particular. One of the advantages of this approach for teachers is that the changes in assessment will reduce their burden. I appreciate that, with every subject, there will be a range of opinions. However, teachers not having to make a central assessment of individual pupils will relieve some of the pressure on them. It will allow them not only to say what they feel students should get but to rank them. No matter how great the level of confidentiality, there will always be a concern among some teachers, who will look over their shoulder and ask themselves whether there will be any comeback if they do not give someone a certain grade. This approach will relieve that burden.

Also, because the choice will be made at a school level, that gives schools an opportunity to be flexible. This will not simply be imposed on schools. Other options involved a high-level reduction being imposed by CCEA on all schools. However, because of where we are in the school year, it would not have given schools that level of flexibility.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

No other Members have indicated that they wish to ask a question. That concludes questions on the first statement by the Minister of Education. I ask the House to take its ease for a few moments while we change the top Table.

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

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order. The Minister of Education has indicated that he wishes to make another statement.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I would like to make a statement to the Assembly about the establishment of the independent review of education. Members will be aware of the commitment in 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA) to:

"establish an external, independent review of education provision, with a focus on securing greater efficiency in delivery costs, raising standards, access to the curriculum for all pupils, and the prospects of moving towards a single education system."

Indeed, there are a couple of other direct references to the review in NDNA.

Work to establish the review had to be suspended in March 2020 due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. I am keen to make further progress on establishing the review, and, to that end, I secured the Executive’s agreement in principle to the draft terms of reference, which will now be published.

This is very much the start of the beginning. The real work lies ahead, once the independent panel has been recruited and the evidence gathering commences. However, the agreement in principle of the draft terms of reference is an important first step, and it signals the intent to have a wide-ranging review of our education system with a view to improving outcomes for children and young people.

We should not underestimate the task ahead. The review and the delivery of whatever recommendations it makes could radically reshape the design and delivery of education in Northern Ireland. Reform and transformation, however, will occur only with political and stakeholder agreement and wider community engagement, as well as the provision of adequate funding.

Education in Northern Ireland operates in both a congested and contested space, and change is inevitably a highly emotive issue. A non-political, non-sectoral and wholly independent review is an essential starting point. It is important that we approach the review with an open mind and without our own predetermined views on what its findings will be. We must also recognise that, although the education system faces many significant challenges, we are building from a position of strength. There are many areas of excellence in the current system. We can be proud of our school leaders, teachers and pupils. We have a well-trained and highly committed workforce delivering innovative practice, and our children and young people continue to achieve high levels of attainment. Those strengths need to be built on to ensure that they permeate the entire system, and challenges must be identified and addressed. We are all in agreement that, if we are to continue to deliver world-class education, we need to reform, modernise and transform. We should always strive to improve services and deliver better outcomes.

Indeed, a significant amount of work is already happening in the field of education transformation and reform, and it is important that the review build on such work rather than try to stall or duplicate it. Members will be aware of the ongoing work of the expert panel on persistent educational underachievement, which is also an NDNA commitment. Further to that, my Department continues to work closely with the Department for the Economy on a strategy for 14- to 19-year-olds, and work is commencing on the delivery of nine workforce reviews linked to the teachers' pay agreement.

The review panel will need to be cognisant of a wide range of work across the Executive that links to improving outcomes for children and young people. All good education systems look continually at how they might improve the quality of provision, and all good schools want to improve further. There is now an opportunity to review education policy, services and provision strategically and to set out a clear vision of how education should be delivered in Northern Ireland in the 21st century.

The review's terms of reference have been agreed by the Executive and will now be published. The review will commence in 2021, once an independent panel can be appointed. That will be done via an open public appointments process to ensure that the panel is wholly independent, with an appropriate breadth of experience and range of expertise. The panel will work over a period of approximately 18 months, producing an interim report after 12 months. I am open to providing further time, if required and requested, to ensure that a quality piece of work is produced. The panel will be made up of a chairperson, a vice-chairperson and three panel members. Those roles will be remunerated. The agreed terms of reference set out the scope of the review and the expected deliverables from the independent panel.

The review is based around three core strands. Strand 1 will focus on the educational journey of children and young people and the outcomes that they achieve. It will consider all aspects of pupils' experience of education from early years to transition into careers. That will include a range of issues, such as transition and transfer at age 11, the experience of children with special educational needs (SEN) and the delivery of the curriculum, as well as many other important aspects.

Strand 2 will focus on support for settings and schools, including the issue of funding and local governance arrangements. That strand will wish to consider how we support our schools and teachers to best teach our children and young people. Again, it will cover many different issues, including the challenging roles of school leaders and teachers, the role of inspection and school improvement, and the role of technology in education to support learning, pedagogy and qualifications.

Strand 3 will then consider how the education system is designed, delivered and administered. The panel will wish to consider the barriers to effective delivery and areas of duplication or inefficiency. That will be a complex work area, with a focus on the core structural issues that may negatively impact on delivery and outcomes.

Although the terms of reference and scope of the review cover a wide range of areas, it is clear to me that there is one element that still requires further refinement, and that is to ensure that the review is ambitious enough to encompass a vision of change and puts in place the practical steps for learners' journey beyond school and into further and higher education, fully preparing them for work and life.

To that extent, today’s announcement is not the finalised position, and, given the critical involvement of the Department for the Economy, I will engage with the Economy Minister in the time ahead to see what additions are needed to the terms of reference. None of that will detract from the existing terms of reference but will add to them before the panel commences its work. Any additions will be brought to the Executive and then confirmed in a statement to the Assembly.

I reiterate that nothing in the review will or should act as an obstacle or delay to the necessary reforms that may be made in the interim by my Department by itself or in conjunction with the Department for the Economy, such as the 14-to-19 strategy or the need to prepare our future workforce by embedding a digital spine in our young people’s education. Nothing in the review should be allowed to impede progress or be used by anyone as an excuse to avoid difficult issues by attempting to kick the can down the road.

In addition to the three distinct strands, the panel will be asked to outline a clear vision for what education in Northern Ireland should aspire to be in the 21st century, the outcomes it should deliver, the appropriate indicators of success and the key actions required to make that vision a reality. It will be for the appointed chairperson to set the work plan and agree the methodology for engaging with stakeholders. However, I expect the review to be delivered in a collaborative manner with significant engagement in order to gather evidence and assess issues.

Education has a wide range of stakeholders, and it is essential that they have an opportunity to support and inform the review. I am keen that the voice of children and young people be central to the work of the review and that their views be considered on how education is currently delivered in Northern Ireland and how it might be improved. Parents and carers also have a critical role in shaping the needs of our education system and will be critical to ensuring that the review progresses successfully. Our school leaders and teachers will also be able to provide insight on current provision, gaps in services and barriers to improved outcomes. There should also be significant engagement with education sectoral bodies and trade unions, as well as wider representative groups.

While engaging with children and young people, practitioners, trade unions etc, it is vital that all viewpoints, all stages, all sectors and all school types, including special education, are involved. There will also be cross-departmental working, with many areas of government having a role in the delivery of education or in improving outcomes for children and young people. In particular, I expect close working with the Department for the Economy on matters relating to further and higher education and the preparation of young people for the world of work. Engagement at a political level is also vital. I see little value in taking time and spending money on delivering the review if its recommendations cannot be put into action. It is incumbent on all of us to work together to find solutions to the challenges that we face, build consensus on delivery of those actions and secure the necessary resources and commitment for educational transformation.

I firmly believe that everyone in the House wants the same things for our children and young people and our education system. We all want a system that provides children and young people with the absolute best start in life. We all want a system that develops children’s personalities, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest and equips them to thrive in later life. We all want a system that is fair and open to all and provides appropriate support for those who need it most. We all want a system that values its workforce and provides them with the tools that they need to be effective. We all want a system that is sustainable, effective and joined up. Fundamentally, I believe that, despite our differences at times, we all want the same things for our children and young people, our workforce and our schools: it is just that sometimes we disagree about the method for obtaining those outcomes. It is as if we are at the start of a journey and we can all agree on where we want to go but have different opinions on the best route to get to that destination.

We must all approach the review with open minds. The review must be based on evidence, learn from best practice locally and elsewhere and be informed by the voice of stakeholders. The panel will operate with objectivity, and, once that review concludes, we, as the final decision-makers, must do so also. I look forward to the review commencing later in 2021 and ask Members to appreciate that it will take some months to run the recruitment process. I am sure that everyone in the House will support the work of the panel once it is in place.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

The time that was given to the Assembly to read the key statements on exams and now the fundamental external review of education was completely unacceptable. I hope that that will be dealt with by the Speaker's Office.

I, nonetheless, welcome this important statement on the independent review of education, a proposal that was made by the Alliance Party during the New Decade, New Approach talks. It is obviously a key opportunity to reshape an education system that is high on quality, low on equity; is in financial crisis; separates children and young people at the age of five; and trains our teachers separately. It is an opportunity for fundamental reform to put in place equal educational opportunity for children and have children learning together. When will the independent review start, when will it report and when will the fundamental reform commence?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

Going back to my remarks on timing, we are in a slightly different position in that there were a few detailed comments from, for instance, the Education Committee that we were able to take on board. On the terms of reference, the Member will be aware that, while the final decision on those lay with the Executive, we were in a position to give draft terms of reference to some sectoral bodies and the Committee for Education and to take on board some suggestions

In terms of the timescale, the aim is to move as quickly possible, but it will probably be a few months into 2021 before the panel is fully established. There will need to be a recruitment process with, first of all, expressions of interest by way of public appointment. Then there will need to be some way of ensuring that people are appointable, be it by interview or whatever. Appointments will then be made, and provision will then be made to support them.

The Member will be aware that, when it came to the expert panel, which was arguably a simpler process, we were in a position to make an announcement, I think, in June and to have the work start in September. There will not be the same time frame in this case, but the process will commence in 2021.

The Member asked about a time frame: again, to some extent, that will be up to the panel. We have given an indication that there should be a full report within 18 months and an interim report within 12 months. Initially, there were slightly tighter time frames, but one piece of feedback that we got from a range of the sectors was that that would, given the scope that would have to be encompassed by the panel, potentially be challenging to deliver. As I said, there will be an 18-month period to report, with an interim report after 12 months. Also, should the panel members feel that they need a little more time, there will be an opportunity to ask for additional time of up to six months, and that will be a call for the chair.

It is important that whatever emerges is got right. While it is critical that this is delivered, it is not a question of rushing something to meet a particular absolute deadline. I should indicate some of the issues that will be covered, as they will be of interest to the Chair and the Committee. If there are changes that can be made in education, it will not be a question of waiting for a report. If there are issues that we can get consensus on and work through, we need to make that progress in the meantime. None of this should be an obstacle to any level of change that can be brought about.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, I welcome your commitment to the review and particularly to the establishment of a panel on educational underachievement, which is very important and is a policy that I hugely endorse and support. Will 18 months for the deliberations be long enough for the panel to conclude its work and report?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

As I indicated, there needs to be a balance. We do not want to have something moving into the ether and never reporting, and we need to have a realistic time frame. The original time frame envisaged that a final report would be done within 15 months. There was considerable feedback from a number of those whom we consulted that that would be tight. The balance that we have struck is that there is an expectation of a final report within 18 months, but there is an opportunity for the panel, if it feels that there is further work that needs to be done, to request an extension. The request should come from the panel rather than either me, as Minister, or my successor in title trying to impose an additional time frame.

Karen Mullan (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Minister, I welcome the work that your Department has done in bringing forward the commitments in 'New Decade, New Approach'. I share the concern about whether the in-depth review that we require will be achieved in that time frame, but I thank you for your answer.

You mentioned the Department for the Economy when you were talking about cross-departmental working. Do you agree that the Department of Health plays a vital role, particularly in our young people's well-being and ensuring that that is provided for in a modern-day education system?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I take on board what has been said about the time frame. If difficulties arise because of it, I am sure that it could be amended. By the same token, however, there will be issues that all of us in the Chamber could debate until the cows come home. We cannot have something that is entirely open-ended. There will be a level of reflection, and, ultimately, as a process issue, we may have to alter it. We have to see how it works out.

I gave the specific example of the Economy Department, but other issues will come into play that will require cross-departmental support. The Member highlighted clearly the Department of Health as a key consideration. I suspect that, even tangentially, there will be other Departments that this will touch on. I want to see the panel engaging with the widest possible range of stakeholders. That will probably vary to some extent according to the subject matter that the panel is looking at. If it is looking at progression to further and higher education, the key focus will be the learner journey and th economy. If we are looking at support in the system for vulnerable children and children with special educational needs, Health will probably be the key Department because there will be cross-fertilisation. There may be issues that touch on other areas: if school transport is looked at, there could be a role for the Department for Infrastructure.

There is nothing that circumscribes whom or what organisations the panel can meet. The point needs to be made that it goes beyond the remit of the Department of Education. It is not simply within government: a lot of good work has happened at times on the ground through third-sector bodies and individuals. As well as those who are formally in education, the role of parents will be critical as we move ahead.

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

I welcome the statement from the Minister. I welcome the review and the opportunity, on behalf of the SDLP, to engage with the panel on educational underachievement. It was very useful.

Minister, why is your Department and the Education Authority (EA) outside the scope of the review, considering how vital those organisations are to the effective operation of the education system? Surely DE and EA should have been part of strand 3. Is EA separate? If so, why? Surely it should have been part of the review, particularly given the trail of chaos to date in relation to aspects of its remit on SEN and other matters.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

First, there is a separate review of EA that is due about now. I think that this will involve all organisations. There is a clear reference to what the strands can contain, and, effectively, therefore, there is an expectation of what they can contain. It is put in a very permissive way so that if, in terms of the wider position as regards governance or anything else, the panel seeks to move beyond the definitions in the terms of reference, there is no bar on it looking at anything, including the Education Authority or, for that matter, DE.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his statement; it is an important piece of work. The Minister rightly pointed out that a number of strategies are ongoing and are not mutually exclusive with the strategy. The best start to education is vital for any pupil. The Minister is aware that Northern Ireland has the lowest starting age in Europe. He is also aware that children born prematurely, underweight or with a birth date in May or June are at a developmental and academic disadvantage. Can he update us on the call for a flexible school start age, or will that have to wait for the independent review to pick it up as a critical issue?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I probably gave a couple of examples that had crossover with Economy, but I made it clear in the statement that, where changes can and should be made ahead of any report, particularly within the next year and a half of the Assembly's lifetime, they should be made.

The Member makes a valid point, particularly about premature babies. I am keen to look at what can be done and, from initial exploration, I think that it would require a legislative change. At the moment, the school starting age is set rigidly in legislation. If legislative action can be taken during this term to create a greater level of flexibility, I would be keen to see that happening. We need to scope out precisely how that can be done, but that is a very good example of something that can be changed and should not be put on the long finger until the report comes out. I share the Member's position on that.

In order to make sure that the matter was looked at — I think that it was suggested in the Education Committee — there is now an explicit reference to flexibility in the final terms of reference. The Member makes a valid point.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I agree with other Members that today's announcement is, indeed, a timely one. It is very ambitious and will undoubtedly be welcomed across the Chamber and throughout the education sector.

I note that, as others mentioned, this is the second New Decade, New Approach initiative that the Minister has announced. I will quote from the statement:

"This is very much the start of the beginning. The real work lies ahead once the independent panel is recruited and the evidence gathering commences."

What will be the most challenging aspect that the panel will face?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

There will be challenges across the board. Some issues will be more contentious than others. There will be challenges around the breadth of issues, which, by necessity, an independent review has to encompass. We are talking about the education of children from preschool up to and beyond secondary-school age. There is a wide remit to cover.

The other issue is that, while the panel will scope out what is needed to support particular aspects, it will also try to ensure that those are financially realisable. I cannot prejudge what will come forward but there may be certain proposals, it might be argued, that will create greater efficiencies and save money. However, some proposals will lead to additional expenditure. It will be about trying to make sure that we have a broader way forward that can also be compatible with what, ultimately, is affordable. We may all come with very different visions but, if any of us were given an extra £1 billion for education, an awful lot of problems could be solved. It is about a mix of what is available financially and the need for best practice in reform because the two go hand in hand.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I encourage the Minister to use his microphone in order to ensure that what he is saying is picked up by Hansard.

Nicola Brogan (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his statement. New Decade, New Approach outlined that an independent review would look at a number of aspects of the education system here, including special education. The Minister is aware that regulations and a code of practice are being consulted on for the new special educational needs framework. Is that new framework beyond the scope of the review? What impact will the independent review have on the new framework?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I will try to speak into the microphone. I know that, at times, there may be some who feel that not hearing what I am saying may be a positive advantage. Nevertheless, for the sake of Hansard, I will make sure that I speak into the microphone.

Special education is a part of all of that. That goes back to one of the issues that has been raised. Work is ongoing in special education, and we should not wait for the review to report before those things can be put in place. As the Member outlined, the work on the SEN regulations and the code of practice is coming to a conclusion. There was a slight extension to the time frame to allow for discussions on those matters. While I will wait to see precisely what emerges from that, the only limitation on the speed and the extent to which it could be implemented would be the budgetary position, which has not as yet been determined for 2021-22. SEN regulations will, probably, be my top priority for next year's budget. It is important that they are implemented. We must ensure that, as well as providing protection and support for young people who have special educational needs, the SEN regulations and the code of practice have a positive long-term impact. A lot of it is about ensuring collaboration and cooperation and that, as far as possible, there are earlier interventions, which would be of benefit to the young people and the wider system.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I welcome the Minister's statement, with the caveat that the upcoming centenary of the state will remind us of why we have the educational structures that we have. There will be concern that some of those structures may find themselves under pressure, but we will wait for the review and give evidence to it. I welcome the fact that decisions are going to continue to be made in education, because reviews can delay progress. Will the Minister soon be in a position to announce the outcome of the 14-19 review, which has been going on for a very long time?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

There is further work to be done on that between myself and the Economy Minister. The Member makes a valid point that there should not be any delays. There is always somebody within the system — in any area — who, because the decision is not to their liking, will be keen to push it down the road. It is important that that does not happen on a range of decisions. There will be ongoing work to ensure that we reach a point, during 2021, at which we can have a full declaration on the 14-19 strategy. That will require further work with the Economy Minister. There will be an examination of how we impact on the learner journey, and that should not be delayed by this. We need to move ahead with finalising that.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement. I warmly welcome any endeavour to improve education for our children and young people and for our teachers and school leaders. I would like to see a focus on improving education for children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. I did not see that referenced in the statement or the terms of reference. The scope of the terms of reference should very much focus on improving education for those young people. Why does the ongoing review not marry with the review that is going on in the Education Authority? Surely, there should be a symbiotic relationship there. When will the Minister report on the independent review of this year's exams that was undertaken by Deloitte?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

There are about three questions there. I will try to remember them. Sometimes, with Mr McNulty, it is like the prizes going past on 'The Generation Game'. Yes, the idea is to have a symbiotic relationship with any of the reviews that are taking place. The point is that they should not obstruct other reviews but be cognisant of them. That relates not only to the Education Authority but to the wider context of where there is disadvantage in the system, which will be part of the review.

With regard to the terms of reference, the point is to have something that is relatively succinct in its nature but to have no bar to what the panel should look at beyond what is put down on paper. The Member also mentioned disadvantaged backgrounds. There is cognisance of the fact that we have a panel looking at educational underachievement, currently, and it is due to report in May of next year. The idea, as it is with other reports, is that, as the panel works, it is cognisant of what is happening elsewhere and what may well be reported elsewhere. Deloitte has carried out a review of the 2020 situation. As I understand it, the report is at draft stage. I anticipate that it will be published early in the new year.

Rosemary Barton (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. We all want our young people to have the best educational experience possible, but I do not see any mention of the preschool sector in the review. Will it be included in the review, because it is extremely important? Children start to learn from the age of two.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

Preschool is considered. One of the bullet points refers to the preparation of children. The first bullet of point of strand 1 reads:

"The preparation of children for schooling in the early years, including childcare, pre-school and transition into primary school".

Preschool will therefore be a part of the review.

The Member is right about the critical nature of preschool. Without rehearsing other arguments, I recognise that we sometimes clash over what provision is put in place at certain points in the lifetime of pupils. Getting it right from the start, in the preschool area, is important in shaping our young people. That is not to say that, once children get to the age of five or six, things are abandoned. However, if we try to catch up at a later stage, and we have not had that focus on the preschool stage, there is a danger of children already being behind on the first day of P1.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Minister, I will not ask what is contained in the document. As the person who wrote the definition of what was going into it, I am quite happy with what is there. However, I am disappointed that only your Department is looking at this review. 'New Decade, New Approach' clearly stated that there was to be a cross-departmental consideration of an independent review of education. You mentioned that you will work with the Economy Department. However, as mentioned earlier, all Departments need to be involved, including Infrastructure, Communities and Health.

Who will be on the recruitment panel? Paragraphs 34 and 35 of the terms of reference state that the Department of Education will come up with a panel and that the criteria for that independent panel, including "experience, skills and personal qualities", will be specified. When will those criteria be published, and will the Executive feed into them?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

The aim is to advertise publicly early in the new year for expressions of interest, and we will list the criteria in connection with that. I thank the Member for all the work that she has done in this sphere. Had she written the terms of reference for this a year or two ago, it would have saved my officials an awful lot of work.

The Member makes the valid point that the review is cross-departmental. However, with any review or panel, one Department always has the lead role. Consequently, while the review will touch upon a range of other departmental subjects, the strongest place for an independent review of education is within the Department of Education.

The Member is right that the NDNA commitments are cross-cutting and apply across the Executive. That is why, for example, we sought the views of stakeholders on the terms of reference prior to moving forward with them. The principal point is that the review had to get approval from the whole Executive. Without speaking out of turn, I can say that the Executive welcomed this, and, for example, the Economy Minister suggested some changes, and the Justice Minister suggested a change in the use of language, which we were able to take into account. Although the Department of Education is leading on this, it is a wider Executive commitment, which is why it has been through the Executive and why, if there were to be any adjustment at a later stage, we would seek the Executive's approval for it.

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

Minister, there is always a risk with these things that, if you prioritise everything, you prioritise nothing. The scale of what is described here is truly vast in its ambition. Although that is welcome, it is important that we see proper resourcing and that those who undertake the study are genuinely independent. In relation to that independence, the statement specifically says that open-mindedness will be key for all of us as we approach this review. Given that few internationally respected educationalists believe that selection at age 11 is a good idea, if they say that it should be reformed or abolished, will the Minister retain his open mind and change his approach?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I am sure that I will retain the same level of open-mindedness as the honourable Member on the subject.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his statement. He knows that the British Government have reneged on certain financial arrangements and commitments under NDNA. What financial commitments has the Minister been given in relation to the review?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

The establishment of the panel has been scoped out. Its work can clearly be done within budget. For instance, the estimated cost for the 18 months is a little bit over a quarter of a million pounds. I know that we in the Government can have disputes at times over where financial support should be allocated to, but this can be afforded and is well within budget.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I want to probe why the terms of reference have been considerably expanded beyond what is in 'New Decade, New Approach'. The document summarises the focus as being on:

"greater efficiency ... raising standards, access to the curriculum ... and the prospects of moving towards a single system."

Within the terms of reference, however, as was just referred to, the transfer system is now subject to review. Was the Minister worked over in the Executive by the anti-selection brigade? Is that why the transfer test is in the review? Is the panel's independence called into question by virtue of the fact that its interim report goes secretly to the Executive and the Education Committee, although, no doubt, we will all hear about it on the BBC? Is that an indication that the Executive want to shape the outcome of the review rather than truly submit themselves to an independent review?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I appreciate the point that the Member has made. First, I have not been done over in any way. The full review of education has to be comprehensive in nature. Different Members in the Chamber, including me, will have particular views on selection. The Member said that the norm is that an interim report will be produced, and that is the case in most sets of circumstances. The wider review simply reflects the need to cover a wide scope, if we are to have a proper review that covers all of education. Again, Members should not fixate on one particular aspect of the review over the wider context. If particular changes are recommended at any stage in the future, it will be for the House to determine what change happens.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

The Minister talks about outcomes-based accountability and cross-departmental working. You would think that it was 2016, albeit without the five years still ahead of us. Minister, I welcome the review. Out of the context of a Programme for Government, however, I wonder how cross-departmental and outcomes-based the review can be. To truly affect outcomes, it has to dovetail with other reviews and policy across all Departments in areas such as childcare, social disadvantage, justice, trauma and civil responsibility. We could stand here all day and talk about the opportunities that education can create in those various areas. How realistic is it that a substantial and worthwhile review can be progressed without a Programme for Government, which realistically will not happen until after the next election?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

There will be some work done. It is not really for me to answer directly on the Programme for Government, as that lies with the Executive Office, but progress will be made on it. Whether in the Department of Education or across government, there is no doubt that we have all had to change course because of the COVID situation. As part of the short- and medium-term actions that can be taken, however, there is an attempt to establish a wider vision for education that goes beyond Assembly mandates. All those things will therefore be able to be taken into account.

The point that I made earlier is that we need to reach a wider political and societal consensus on as many issues as possible, and that is why there needs to be consultation with the panel. There is no point in simply producing a report that gathers dust just because, "He said such-and-such, while she said such-and-such", and, as a result, there is no common understanding. That is one of the major challenges that lies ahead. Earlier, I described the review as being the "start of the beginning". Although a level of dovetailing with the Programme for Government and other things is clearly needed, we need to make a start on the review.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

That concludes questions to the Minister on his statement. I ask Members who are leaving the Chamber to make sure that they sanitise their area. We will take a few brief moments as we change those at the Table.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Executive Committee Business

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I call the Minister of Justice, Naomi Long, to move the Bill.

Moved. — [Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice).]

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

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. Members should note that the Marshalled List is dated 15 December, and both it and the grouping list supersede the ones that were issued for the debate that was scheduled to take place on 7 December. Members will have received printed and electronic copies of the documents, but additional printed copies are available in the rotunda, if needed for the debate — that is, the papers for 15 December.

There are two groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn. The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1 to 8 and amendment No 13, which deal with additional protection for children and support for victims of domestic abuse. The second debate will be on amendment Nos 9 to 12 and amendment Nos 14 to 17, which deal with the implementation and operation of the offence and technical matters.

I remind Members who intend to speak that, during the debates on the two groups of amendments, they should address all the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on each group has been 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. If that is clear, Members, we shall move on.

We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient, as I said, to debate amendment Nos 2 to 8 and amendment No 13. I call the Minister of Justice, Ms Naomi Long, to move amendment No 1 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I beg to move amendment No 1:

New Clause

Before clause 26 insert –

"Information-sharing with schools etc.

A26.—(1) The Department of Justice may by regulations make provision—

(a) enabling or requiring a relevant person to inform a designated person in relation to an education provider of an incident of domestic abuse concerning a child who is a pupil or a student of the education provider,

(b) for the purpose of or in connection with functions exercisable by a relevant person or a designated person accordingly.

(2) Here—

(a) a relevant person is a person of a description (or acting in a particular capacity) specified in regulations under this section,

(b) a designated person in relation to an education provider is a person of a description (or acting in a particular capacity) specified in regulations under this section,

(c) an education provider is—

(i) a school or a college,

(ii) a non-school body which provides pre-school education (or any facility or setting at which pre-school education is provided), or

(iii) any other body or facility which provides education or training of any kind (or any facility or setting at which education or training of any kind is provided),

(d) an incident is one whether alleged or proved,

(e) a child is a person under 18 years of age.

(3) A relevant person, as may be referred to in regulations under this section, must be a person who has functions of a public nature.

(4) Regulations under this section may include provision—

(a) describing what is to be regarded as an incident of domestic abuse concerning a child,

(b) concerning—

(i) pupils or students generally, or particular categories of pupil or student,

(ii) education providers generally, or particular categories of provider (or particular facilities or settings within different categories),

(c) stating who is to be regarded as a pupil or a student of an education provider,

(d) setting out circumstances in or reasons for which—

(i) a relevant person may or must give information to a designated person or a designated person may or must give information to a relevant person,

(ii) a different person (including of a description specified) may or must give information to a relevant person or a designated person,

(e) with respect to information—

(i) regulating or limiting the use or disclosure of information by a relevant person or a designated person,

(ii) specifying offences and penalties for unauthorised use or disclosure of information.

(5) Regulations under this section may include provision involving such further matters as the Department of Justice considers appropriate.

(6) Regulations under this section may include provision amending statutory provisions (as construed in accordance with section 1(f) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954).

(7) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Assembly."

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: Leave out clause 26 and insert –

"Protective measures for victims of abuse

26.—(1) The Department of Justice may by regulations make provision—

(a) enabling or requiring steps to be taken or measures to be imposed for protecting a person from abusive behaviour,

(b) for the purpose of or in connection with such steps or measures for protecting a person from abusive behaviour.

(2) Steps or measures which may be provided for in regulations under this section are not limited to notices or orders as referred to in this section (and nothing in the following subsections of this section is to the prejudice of the generality of what may be provided for in regulations under this section).

(3) Protecting a person from abusive behaviour is—

(a) protecting a person from abusive behaviour perpetrated by someone to whom the person is personally connected, or

(b) protecting a person from risk of abusive behaviour perpetrated by someone to whom the person is personally connected.

(4) What amounts to abusive behaviour is to be construed, or whether two people are personally connected to each other is to be determined, in the same way as is provided for in Chapter 1.

(5) Regulations under this section—

(a) may include provision to the effect that steps or measures are available on the basis of alleged as well as proven behaviour,

(b) must include provision to the effect that steps or measures—

(i) are for protecting persons who are at least 16 years of age, and

(ii) are to apply in relation to perpetrators or alleged perpetrators of abusive behaviour who are at least 18 years of age.

(6) Regulations under this section may include provision—

(a) about the giving of notices to perpetrators or alleged perpetrators of abusive behaviour (or for review or withdrawal of notices) by a police officer,

(b) setting out grounds for giving notices, conditions to be met before notices may be given or circumstances in which notices may be given (including matters to be taken into account before notices are given),

(c) setting out—

(i) what requirements, including restrictions or prohibitions, may be imposed by notices (and for how long and as to which places),

(ii) specifying information to be included in notices,

(d) allowing notices to impose requirements relating to, as well as relating to persons for whose protection notices are given, children of or residing with persons for whose protection notices are given.

(7) Regulations under this section may include provision—

(a) about the making of orders against perpetrators or alleged perpetrators of abusive behaviour (including orders extending, varying or revoking previous orders) by a court,

(b) setting out grounds for making orders, conditions to be met before orders may be made or circumstances in which orders may be made (including matters to be taken into account before orders are made),

(c) setting out—

(i) what requirements, including restrictions or prohibitions, may be imposed by orders,

(ii) conditions to be met for imposing electronic monitoring requirements in orders,

(d) allowing orders to impose requirements relating to, as well as relating to persons for whose protection orders are made, children of or residing with persons for whose protection orders are made,

(e) allowing orders—

(i) to apply for specific periods (or to have temporary effect),

(ii) to apply generally or to be expressly limited to particular localities,

(f) specifying—

(i) who may make applications for orders, whether notification of applications is required or circumstances in which applications may or must be made,

(ii) proceedings in which orders may be made or circumstances in which applications need not be made in such proceedings,

(g) in relation to proceedings as to orders—

(i) prescribing rules of procedure to be followed,

(ii) stating what evidence may be heard or must be considered,

(iii) making special measures available for the benefit of witnesses,

(iv) deeming proceedings to be either civil or criminal proceedings,

(h) enabling—

(i) rules of court, county court rules or magistrates' courts rules to make provision for procedures in relation to orders (so far as other powers to make rules cannot be relied on for this),

(ii) appeals to be made to a court against the making of orders or against decisions not to make orders (and for appeals to be final).

(8) Regulations under this section may include provision—

(a) imposing notification requirements on persons subject to orders,

(b) conferring on police officers powers exercisable in particular circumstances to take samples or images from or of persons believed by them to be subject to such notification requirements.

(9) Regulations under this section may include provision to the effect that—

(a) persons who are subject to orders that are not expressly limited to particular localities must comply with such orders—

(i) in all parts of the United Kingdom,

(ii) outside the United Kingdom if particular conditions in relation to having a residential connection with Northern Ireland, or being a national of the United Kingdom, are met,

(b) every other provision in such regulations, particularly with respect to breaches of orders, applies accordingly.

(10) Regulations under this section may include provision—

(a) conferring on police officers powers of arrest exercisable with a warrant or powers of arrest exercisable without a warrant—

(i) in relation to breaches or suspected breaches of notices,

(ii) in relation to breaches or suspected breaches of orders,

(b) requiring persons arrested for breaches or suspected breaches of notices or orders to be brought before a court within specified time limits,

(c) authorising persons arrested for breaches or suspected breaches of notices or orders to be detained in custody, pending being brought before a court—

(i) in specified circumstances,

(ii) for periods not exceeding specified limits,

(d) authorising persons brought before a court in relation to breaches or suspected breaches of notices or orders to be remanded in custody, or granted bail (with or without conditions attached)—

(i) in specified circumstances,

(ii) for periods not exceeding specified limits,

(e) specifying offences and penalties—

(i) for breaches of notices or for breaches of orders,

(ii) for breaches of notification requirements by persons subject to notices or orders.

(11) Regulations under this section may include provision regulating or limiting the use of, or controlling or requiring the retention or destruction of, samples or images taken from or of persons under such regulations.

(12) Regulations under this section may include provision—

(a) for the Department of Justice to—

(i) issue or publish guidance about the exercise of functions under such regulations (except judicial functions),

(ii) keep such guidance under review or revise such guidance in light of review,

(b) specifying who is to have regard to such guidance when issued or published or circumstances in which regard is to be had to such guidance.

(13) Regulations under this section may include provision involving such further matters as the Department of Justice considers appropriate.

(14) Regulations under this section may include provision amending statutory provisions (as construed in accordance with section 1(f) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954).

(15) A draft of regulations under this section must be laid before the Assembly no later than the end of the period of 2 years beginning with the day on which Chapters 1 and 2 come into operation.

(16) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Assembly." — [Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice).]

No 3: Leave out clause 27 and insert –

"Eligibility of victims for civil legal aid

27.—(1) In the Civil Legal Services (Financial) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015, in regulation 10 (waiver of eligibility limits in proceedings relating to domestic violence or forced marriage)—

(a) after paragraph (1) insert—

'(1A) This regulation applies to an application by a client for the funding of representation (lower courts) in proceedings for an order that is an Article 8 order within the meaning of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 if—

(a) the client is the respondent in the proceedings, and

(b) the Director is satisfied that—

(i) the client is or appears to be the victim of abusive behaviour perpetrated or apparently perpetrated by the applicant seeking the order, and

(ii) the applicant seeking the order is someone to whom the client is personally connected.',

(b) after paragraph (4) insert—

'(5) The following apply for the purposes of paragraph (1A) as they apply for the purposes of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2020 (to give meanings to certain expressions)—

(a) section 2 (as read with section 3(2)) of that Act,

(b) sections 4 and 5 of that Act.'.

(2) Guidance under section 3 of the Legal Aid and Coroners' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 must describe the basis, particularly as regards applicable information about the commission or alleged commission of an offence involving domestic abuse, on which the Director may be satisfied as mentioned in regulation 10(1A) of the Civil Legal Services (Financial) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015.

(3) An offence involving domestic abuse is—

(a) an offence under section 1, or

(b) an offence of any kind that is aggravated as provided for in section 15.

(4) The Director is as defined in the Civil Legal Services (Financial) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015.

(5) This section is without prejudice to—

(a) any power to make regulations under the Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003,

(b) the power to give guidance under section 3 of the Legal Aid and Coroners’ Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 2014." — [Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice).]

No 4: As an amendment to amendment No 3, in clause 27(1), in inserted text (1A), after "funding of" insert "advice and assistance or". — [Miss Woods.]

No 5: As an amendment to amendment No 3, in clause 27(1), in inserted text (1A), leave out "(lower courts)". — [Ms S Bradley.]

No 6: As an amendment to amendment No 3, in clause 27(1), in inserted text (1A), leave out (a) and (b) and insert –

"the Director is satisfied that—

(a) the client is or appears to be the victim of abusive behaviour perpetrated or apparently perpetrated by another party to the proceedings, and

(b) the other party to the proceedings is someone to whom the client is personally connected.",". — [Miss Woods.]

No 7: New Clause

After clause 27 insert –

"Proposals as to availability of civil legal aid

27A.—(1) The Department of Justice must lay before the Assembly a report setting out the Department's proposals for—

(a) making regulations under the Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 for the prescribed purpose, or

(b) taking some different course of action for the prescribed purpose.

(2) A report under this section must be laid before the Assembly before the end of the period of 2 years beginning with the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent.

(3) The prescribed purpose is that of—

(a) reducing (including to nil), in specific circumstances, financial costs to be incurred by a relevant client with respect to receiving funded services in or in relation to qualifying proceedings to which an abusive person as well as the relevant client are parties, or

(b) preventing, so far as reasonably possible—

(i) qualifying proceedings from being initiated unduly against a relevant client by an abusive person by virtue of having access to funded services, or

(ii) qualifying proceedings to which both a relevant client and an abusive person are parties from being prolonged unduly by the abusive person by virtue of having access to funded services.

(4) Qualifying proceedings are—

(a) proceedings for an order that is an Article 8 order within the meaning of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, or

(b) proceedings on appeal arising from proceedings for an order that is an Article 8 Order within the meaning of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.

(5) A relevant client is a client who is or appears to be the victim of abusive behaviour.

(6) An abusive person is someone—

(a) who is the perpetrator or apparent perpetrator of abusive behaviour of which the relevant client is or appears to be the victim, and

(b) to whom the relevant client is personally connected.

(7) A conclusion by the Director, when acting by virtue of regulations made under the Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 for the prescribed purpose—

(a) as to whether—

(i) a person is or appears to be the victim of abusive behaviour, or

(ii) someone is the perpetrator or apparent perpetrator of abusive behaviour, or

(b) as to whether two people are personally connected to each other,

may be reached, particularly on the basis of applicable information about the commission or alleged commission of an offence involving domestic abuse, having regard to appropriate guidance given under section 3 of the Legal Aid and Coroners' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 2014.

(8) What amounts to abusive behaviour is to be construed, or whether two people are personally connected to each other is to be determined, in the same way as is provided for in Chapter 1.

(9) An offence involving domestic abuse is—

(a) an offence under section 1, or

(b) an offence of any kind that is aggravated as provided for in section 15.

(10) A reference in this section to a client or funded services, or to the Director, is to be construed in accordance with the Civil Legal Services (Financial) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015." — [Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice).]

No 8: In clause 28, page 14, line 36, leave out subsection (2). — [Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice).]

No 13: In clause 38, page 32, line 27, at end insert –

"(1ZA) Section 27 comes into operation at the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent." — [Mr Givan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice ).]

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Before turning to the detail of amendment No 1, I would like to highlight that, prior to and following Consideration Stage, there has been ongoing engagement with the Justice Committee to further develop, refine and improve a number of provisions in the Bill, including the clause on information sharing with schools. As a result, the amendments that I withdrew or did not move ahead of Consideration Stage have been further enhanced and will better serve the needs of all victims of domestic abuse. I thank the Committee for its constructive engagement on that. As a result of our collective collaborative efforts, we are able to bring forward further improved provisions in the Bill, strengthening how the new offence will operate and be reported upon, as well as the safeguards and protections that will be afforded to victims of domestic abuse and children who are affected by it.

As a result of the constructive engagement with the Committee, we are able to make a number of positive changes to the Bill. For example, amendment No 1, which is on information sharing with schools, has been widened to include preschools and is greatly expanded on through the framework of the enabling powers. In addition, the provision on protective measures for victims of abuse, which is the next amendment in this group, now includes a subsection providing that steps or measures to protect individuals are not limited to the notices and orders that are set out in that clause. The framework for the enabling powers in that clause has also been greatly expanded upon. That would enable other provisions for protective steps and measures to be made that are entirely separate from any domestic abuse protection notices and orders. I welcome the Committee's engagement and hope that it will allow us to positively progress those amendments today. There will, no doubt, be a lively debate on the legal aid clauses, and I ask the House to support my amendments on that.

I will now turn to the details of the amendments that I am bringing forward and advise the House of my position on the other amendments in this group that the Committee and individual Members tabled. Amendment No 1 relates to information sharing with schools in order to advise them that there has been an incident of domestic abuse the previous evening. The amendment allows for the expansion of the current provisions in the enabling regulation, making powers as well as a number of small textual refinements. New clause A26 will replace the current provision, which will be removed from clause 28 through amendment No 8. As I noted, the amendment builds upon, strengthens and improves the current provision in the Bill by more expansively setting out what can be provided for in regulations.

The amendment ensures that the regulations can set out who information can be shared with and to; what is deemed to be an education provider, including a school or college, providers of preschool education or any other body, facility or setting that provides education or training of any kind; who are pupils or students of schools; and who are education providers. That will include colleges or other bodies, facilities or settings providing education or training programmes. They will set out what a domestic abuse incident concerning a child is, the circumstances in which information can be shared and unauthorised disclosure of information as well as the offences and penalties that are associated with that.

The Justice Committee asked that preschools be captured in the Bill, including those that form part of a primary school as well as independent entities. Those are now provided for, with the Department of Education content that early-years education should be covered in the Bill. Importantly, the amendment now includes reference to preschool provision outside of a school setting, with a school already captured in the Bill.

Changes have also been made to the provisions to ensure that we can capture instances where a child or young person is educated somewhere other than at school, with around 30 such centres across Northern Ireland. That amendment, which the Committee is supportive of, ensures that the enabling powers are as robust as possible in what can be achieved via regulations and that we have the necessary coverage in what is to be provided for through the scheme going forward.

Amendment No 2 is a substitute amendment to clause 26 on protective measures for victims of abuse. Similar to the approach adopted for the information sharing with schools provision, it is intended to build on and expand the Committee amendment, setting out a more detailed framework for the underpinning regulation-making powers. This is another area in which further changes have been made in light of constructive discussions with the Justice Committee. The amendment provides that the regulation powers will enable the protection of a person from abusive behaviour and will set out steps or measures that can be taken in connection with this. As I have clearly set out before, my preference remains to reflect the detail of these provisions in the next Justice Bill, which is the miscellaneous provisions Bill. However, it is also vital that, in order for the enabling power to be effective, if it were to be utilised, it is as robust as possible.

While the amendment provides for the possible scope in the introduction of new domestic abuse protection notices and orders, following further discussions with the Committee, it now also ensures that we are not limited to that. Without prejudice to the detail set out in the clause on possible domestic abuse protection notices and orders, the amendment includes a new subsection providing that steps or measures to protect victims of abusive behaviour are not limited to the notices and orders covered in the clause. I thank the Committee for its intervention in that respect. Its deliberations have been an important part of ensuring that the enabling powers are as wide as possible and do not unnecessarily constrain us. This would enable other provisions to be made that are entirely separate from domestic abuse protection notices and orders in order to protect victims of domestic abuse, should that be considered necessary.

A further key change is that the amendment makes it explicit that requirements including restrictions or prohibitions for notices and orders would apply to children of or living with those for whom protection notices and orders are made. For the avoidance of any doubt, the provision now makes that explicit.

Before I turn to the detail of amendment No 2, Members will wish to note that I have today published for consultation proposals for new domestic abuse protection notices (DAPNs) and orders (DAPOs). The new notices, which will be issued by the police, aim to deliver immediate short-term protection from all forms of domestic abuse, whether physical or non-physical abusive behaviour. The intention is that they would be followed up with longer-term protection through domestic abuse protection orders granted by the courts. A domestic abuse protection order would provide flexible, longer-term protection for victims. The duration of orders could be from six months to one or two years but could be longer where that is deemed necessary and proportionate.

With regard to protective steps or measures, the amendment provides that this will apply in relation to abusive behaviour and those who are personally connected, as set out in chapter 1. With regard to the detail of the enabling powers, it makes it clear that any protective steps or measures can apply with regard to alleged or proven abusive behaviour. Importantly, with regard to the protection that may be afforded, an offence does not have to be committed, and this could be based on the risk of abusive behaviour that is present. The new notices and orders would apply for the purpose of directly protecting those aged 16 or over, as well as associated children. Perpetrators or alleged perpetrators would need to be aged 18 or over. That reflects the concerns that the new notices and orders could criminalise young people for breach of the notice or order where no offence may have been committed. Furthermore, a lower threshold of, say, 16-plus could result in young people being removed from their home where, again, an offence might not have been committed. Both those age thresholds reflect the position on the domestic violence protection notices (DVPNs) and orders (DVPOs) that were passed by the House in 2015, as well as draft legislation in England, Wales and Scotland. It is also a position that is supported by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) and accepted by the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY).

The enabling powers provide that regulations can make provision about setting out the grounds for giving notices and orders, the conditions to be met and the circumstances in which they can be given. It is intended that, in the short term, the notices and orders would set out what requirements could be imposed on individuals with regard to requiring an alleged perpetrator not to contact the victim, not to come within a certain distance of their home, not to enter their home or in requiring them to leave the victim's home.

The operation of the prohibitions would be introduced, stabilised and mainstreamed ahead of any longer-term provisions that would enable positive requirements to be introduced, subject to the necessary funding being secured. That could include, for example, a requirement to attend behavioural change or substance misuse programmes or to be electronically monitored, with the latter most likely applying in criminal court cases.

The regulations also make provision that would enable domestic abuse protection orders to be made by the criminal, civil or family courts of their own volition during other court proceedings that would not necessarily have to be domestic abuse-related but where concerns relating to domestic abuse emerge during those proceedings. Applications could also be made to the court. The court would have the power to extend, vary or revoke the orders.

Notification requirements are provided for under the enabling power, meaning that the notices and orders will require individuals to notify the police of their name and address and any changes to that information while the measures are in effect.

There is a range of provisions associated with the breach of notices and orders — for example, that this would be an arrestable offence or could be dealt with by way of contempt of court. The provision on complying with the extent of the order will ensure that we can capture behaviour carried out elsewhere but which must also have a locus back in Northern Ireland.

I turn now to the amendments on legal aid: amendment Nos 3, 7 and 13. At Consideration Stage, I made clear my serious concerns about clause 27, which currently stands part of the Bill. Since that time, my officials and I have had the opportunity to engage with members of the Justice Committee and with stakeholders to talk about those concerns in more detail. From those discussions, it is clear that we have a shared ambition to help victims who need help. That is the whole purpose of the Bill. It is important that our actions, particularly in such a technically and costly area as legal aid, are considered and evidence-based.

Clause 27 is running and running fast before we can walk. To put it another way, it is like trying to build a house without a clear design and solid foundations. Amendment No 7 is simply designed to put those foundations in place, while amendment No 3 focuses clause 27 in a way that will help victims more immediately while minimising unintended consequences.

The most serious of those unintended consequences in clause 27, as it stands, is that it is open to exploitation by abusers. That worries me greatly, and it should worry all Members. Through the current clause, there is nothing to prevent abusers masquerading as victims in order to access legal aid and using it to continue their campaign of tyranny through the family courts at public expense. That undermines the entire purpose of what was a well-intentioned provision. To be clear, the feature of the current clause that makes it dangerous in this way to victims is that it allows people to use the waiver to bring as well as to defend applications. If we are going to help all the people who need protection from the waiver, we will not be able to have the strictest of tests for identifying genuine victims. There will be people who will not have secured a conviction or court order against their abuser and may not have previously reported their abuse to the police. Those people may still need and deserve help. We need to set a test that those deserving people can pass. That means, however, that abusers could also manage to pass that test by trying to pass it dishonestly. We cannot allow those abusers to use the waiver to access public funds to drag their victims back into court repeatedly. The only way to avoid that terrible and perverse outcome is to limit the waiver to people who are defending applications by their abusers. That protects victims and locks the door on abusers trying to cheat the system.

Amendment No 3 focuses assistance on enabling victims to access legal aid to defend themselves in family proceedings initiated at the family proceedings court by the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator of domestic abuse. That is my reading of the Assembly's intention in clause 27, and it is what amendment No 3 tries to do: to support victims in a targeted way.

Cost is, of course, an important consideration. Legal aid is public money, and we all have a common goal of ensuring that scarce public resources are targeted to help those in greatest need. Budgets are under pressure, and there is no sign that the Executive's financial position will improve in the next few years. That makes it all the more important that any additional spend on legal aid is focused properly for the benefit of those most in need and for those who are victims of crime. Clause 27, as it stands, will cost many multiples of what is needed to support victims. By our calculations, the current clause could add up to an additional £14 million to the legal aid bill each year. Amendment No 3 would reduce that bill considerably by targeting support on those who have the greatest need of it: victims who are defending themselves in cases brought against them by an alleged perpetrator in the family courts in a vexatious manner.

I know that, for some, amendment No 3 does not go far enough. It will certainly not solve all the problems that victims of abuse encounter in the family courts; no legal aid provision could. That is why I am also moving amendment No 7 and the ancillary commencement provision at amendment No 14. Amendment No 7 will place a duty on the Department to examine and report to the Assembly on what further protections would be useful for victims of domestic abuse involved in article 8 proceedings.

I remain to be convinced that a legal aid waiver is the most effective way to support victims of domestic abuse in the family courts, though I absolutely concede that such support is necessary. Amendment No 7, however, gives the Department an opportunity to examine the operation and the effectiveness of the waiver and to identify if and where it falls short in the support of victims who are in need and what else needs to be done to supplement that. It is about building solid foundations for the future, and so it complements amendment No 3. I am keen to ensure that the work on the report gathers and analyses appropriate evidence and involves key stakeholders. That is the best way to ensure the right outcomes for victims in the medium and longer term.

Legal aid is a complex and contested area of law, and it interacts in many different ways with the experience of people in contact with the civil courts. Because of how the issue has been introduced into the Bill, the detailed research work needed to fully understand the likely implications of the cost protections offered has not been able to be undertaken. Therefore, it simply does not make sense to hold firm to the very wide-ranging changes in clause 27, as it stands, with no clear idea of the impact that it would have. That is why I urge the House today to support amendment Nos 3 and 7 while rejecting amendment No 4 and, most critically, amendment No 6. Amendment No 3 ensures targeted help now while the foundations for a sustainable, evidence-based and affordable long-term approach to the problem is developed through the work that will be undertaken if amendment No 7 becomes law.

I turn now to the other legal aid amendments — amendment Nos 4, 5 and 6 — which essentially undo some of what is being done by amendment No 3 and largely restore clause 27 as it stands. I will resist the amendments to different degrees for reasons that I have outlined.

Amendment No 4 would broaden the waiver to cover advice and assistance. Advice and assistance is the most basic form of legal aid and is intended to provide limited legal advice on a point of Northern Ireland law: nothing more. It is not needed in these circumstances, and passing the amendment would create additional cost for no tangible benefit to victims. That is because the types of help offered through advice and assistance are already included as part of the service provided by a solicitor through representation in the lower courts. All the advice and assistance that a person needs in relation to their case, including access to mediation and other forms of support, are available through the waiver without the need for amendment No 4. It effectively duplicates payment for a service already included in the waiver.

Amendment No 5 is well intentioned and is designed to extend the waiver to the higher courts. I understand and sympathise with the intention and am concerned about rushing the provision without a clear understanding of its impact on victims. In particular, applying the waiver at this level will interact in a complex and ambiguous way with the other rules for the calculation of the contributions that people need to pay towards their costs. It could lead, for example, to quite high contributions being paid by people of limited means and very low contributions being paid by people of much greater means. In my view, victims of abuse would be better served by careful consideration of how existing and, if necessary, new protections can be used to protect those who need it. This is one of the issues that should ideally be explored through the report envisaged at amendment No 7. However, in the event that amendment No 5 is adopted, it may be that, as a result of the reports that we bring to the Assembly, we will need further legislation to address any issues of how it interacts. While I am not in favour of the amendment, I accept that there is merit in it. Therefore, while I will not support it, I will leave it to Members to judge for themselves whether they feel that it should stand part of the Bill.

The vast majority of family proceedings start in the lower courts. Some 80% of cases are heard there. With increased access to legal aid, there should be less and less reason for people to need recourse to the higher courts, given that access to justice in the lower courts should be significantly improved. For the other 20% of cases, a better approach would be to use the existing discretion available to the director of legal aid casework around the application of the financial eligibility test to support those victims who need to defend proceedings in the higher courts and allow time for the work proposed in amendment No 7 to examine whether that or an alternative is the best long-term way of supporting victims. For those reasons, I will not personally support amendment No 5, but, as I say, I will leave it to Members.

Rachel Woods (Green, North Down)

I thank the Minister for giving way. Can she outline how many times the existing discretionary power of the director of the Legal Services Agency has been used in the higher courts?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I can give the Member an answer to her question because she has asked it before: it has not been used to date. That is the one the reasons why, in the legislation, we intend to define how that discretion would be applied in order that it can be used in future. With due respect to the Member, looking at what has happened to date is not really a good place to start. Looking at what happens from here on is what really matters. The importance of defining when that waiver is to be used in the higher courts is the part that is of most value. That is what we intend to do. The waiver has not been used to date due to the risk of appeal and challenge against it, because it is so poorly defined. It is the Department's intention to address that issue in response to the fact that it has been raised by a number of Members.

As I said, amendment No 6 is by far the most problematic of the three amendments. It seeks to broaden the scope of legal aid waivers significantly. It enables individuals not only to defend themselves but to initiate article 8 proceedings. The breadth of that application makes it much easier for a perpetrator to access legal aid in order to continue their campaign of abuse by masquerading as a victim. That is not a hypothetical or potential side effect; it is a gaping hole in the provision that we can be sure a coercive and controlling abuser will seize upon. We cannot allow that to happen. Of course, my Department will provide guidance to the Legal Services Agency on the definition of a victim of domestic abuse that will try to reduce the risk. However, against the backdrop of a very broadly drawn legal waiver, as envisaged by amendment No 6, that risk cannot be removed entirely without defining very tightly, through guidance, the definition of a victim. That would mean some genuine victims of abuse being excluded from help. That, in my view, would be wrong. In the event that amendment No 6 is adopted, however, there may be no other safe course of action. It would therefore be far better to reject amendment No 6 while supporting amendment No 3. By taking that course, we would be able to focus support on helping genuine victims to defend themselves in family proceedings brought by their abuser in a vexatious and controlling manner. In tandem, the Department will, through amendment No 7, invest time and energy in examining whether and in what circumstances victims should be able to benefit from legal aid when initiating proceedings. I strongly commend that approach to the House.

Finally, on amendment No 13, I have been very clear that there are potentially large and currently unquantified risks associated with the introduction of the waiver, not least the possibility that it could have repercussive financial impacts here and in other UK jurisdictions. I have asked Members not to introduce commencement provisions that would lock us in to a course of action that we might all later come to regret. The amendment continues to take us down that unwise path. We have now decoupled the commencement of the abuse provisions from the commencement of the legal aid provisions. However, the amendment still requires that we commence the legal aid provisions, regardless of any advice that we receive and regardless of whether it is repercussive. I have received suggestions that if, following proper economic appraisal of the waiver provisions, it is considered too unsafe to allow them to come into effect, they could simply be repealed. This is an extraordinary approach to making legislation. It is also wholly unnecessary. I have given a commitment, and I give it again today —.

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

Will the Minister give way?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Yes.

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

Minister, I thank you for moving Further Consideration Stage. On amendment No 13, can the Minister at least recognise that, beyond these four walls, there is not much confidence in this place and that there is not much confidence among stakeholders that this commencement will happen unless it is in the Bill? I appreciate that the Minister has given assurances in other places. Can she give an assurance, however, in the House and for Hansard, that, for the remainder of her term, she will be held accountable for commencement happening?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Had the Member not intervened, I was about to give such a commitment on the record in the House. I will do the work necessary to understand the impacts of the provisions, share the analysis that is produced and, if it is safe to do so, commence the provisions in good time. That is a commitment made by an Executive Minister to the Assembly.

We must continue to work on the basis of trust. If we want to raise expectations of our standing in the community, we must be willing to trust one another when we make such commitments. I trust that that assurance will satisfy Members. To require an alternative approach that might needlessly tie up Assembly time and legislative drafting resources, in what is a very short term with a considerable amount of drafting pressure, is unprecedented and unnecessary.

Further to my commitment, there was already a case before the law lords that sets out, with clarity, that, where a Minister has legislation that requires commencement, that Minister cannot simply opt not to commence it. That was decided in a case before the law lords in 1995. A Minister is compelled to commence all parts of the legislation, other than where there is very good reason not to do so. Having very good reason not to do so would need to be something of the scale of the repercussive costs in the rest of the UK. If Members therefore do not wish to put their faith in me, they can put their faith in the law. It would be right, for the Justice Committee above all, to have faith in the law.

I am asking Members to accept my assurance and that of the law on that point and to reject amendment No 13.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I ask Members to take their ease until 2.00 pm, when Question Time will commence. The debate will continue after Question Time, and the next contributor will be the Chairperson of the Committee for Justice, Mr Paul Givan.

The debate stood suspended.

Oral Answers to Questions — Health

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

1. Ms Anderson asked the Minister of Health to outline plans for the roll-out of a COVID-19 vaccine. (AQO 1360/17-22)

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

8. Mr McGlone asked the Minister of Health for an update on the roll-out of a COVID-19 vaccine. (AQO 1367/17-22)

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

12. Mrs Cameron asked the Minister of Health for an update on preparations to administer COVID-19 vaccinations to those living within residential care settings. (AQO 1371/17-22)

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

15. Mr Easton asked the Minister of Health for an update on plans for the roll-out of COVID-19 vaccination in North Down. (AQO 1374/17-22)

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Mr Speaker, I intend to answer questions 1, 8, 12 and 15 together, so I ask for additional time for this response.

Northern Ireland has been planning for the deployment of the COVID-19 vaccine for many months and, along with the other devolved Administrations, will adhere to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) advice on the prioritisation of the vaccine. JCVI advised:

"the first priorities for any COVID-19 vaccination programme should be the prevention of COVID-19 mortality and the protection of health and social care staff and systems. Secondary priorities could include vaccination of those at increased risk of hospitalisation and at increased risk of exposure, and to maintain resilience in essential public services."

The model for vaccine deployment has been designed to be pragmatic, agile and flexible. Teams of vaccinators from a range of professional backgrounds have been trained. In addition to existing health and social care (HSC) staff and primary care staff, 870 individuals have now submitted application forms to help out as vaccinators during the vaccination programme.

Phase 1 of the programme officially began on Tuesday 8 December, with all four UK countries launching their vaccination programme. In Northern Ireland, the programme began at the Belfast Trust vaccination site, where vaccinators from across Northern Ireland were invited to receive the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. All the trusts intended to start vaccinating health and social care workers in the week commencing 14 December. However, in light of the planned delivery schedules of the vaccine in December and January, the staff programme will now have to be phased, starting with those who are at greatest risk or those who work directly with patients at the greatest risk. Ultimately, all health and social care workers will have the opportunity to be vaccinated, and that is expected to be within the first quarter of 2021. There will be seven trust vaccination sites operating in Northern Ireland. Those will be located at the Royal Victoria Hospital; the Ulster Hospital in Dundonald; South Lake Leisure Centre in Craigavon; Seven Towers Leisure Centre in Ballymena; Foyle Arena in Londonderry/Derry; Omagh Leisure Complex; and Lakeland Forum in Enniskillen.

My officials have worked closely with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to develop a deployment model that will enable deployment in care homes and that takes into account the unique characteristics of the vaccine, including transport requirements. Teams from health trusts will vaccinate care home residents, working closely with local GPs under comprehensive health trust governance arrangements that are designed to ensure that the integrity and efficacy of the vaccine is maintained throughout. Trust mobile vaccination teams intend to visit all the homes over the next few weeks subject to dealing with any that have a current COVID-19 outbreak.

We are considering how the arrangements might be extended to include the over-80s living in the community. Due to the logistics of the strict handling conditions attached to the use of the Pfizer vaccine, it is very difficult to deploy the vaccine in a GP setting. However, every effort is being made to try to arrange either a trust-based or GP-based programme for the over-80s. From early January 2021, subject to the availability of a suitable vaccine, it is intended to roll out the programme through primary care-led vaccination clinics that will be responsible for the vast majority of eligible individuals of 50 years and over. GPs will work their way down through the eligible cohorts, starting with the oldest.

While the start of the vaccination programme is a highly positive development, I stress that it will be months before the vaccination programme is complete. We are entering an extremely challenging winter for the NHS in Northern Ireland. I cannot stress enough the importance of the population following the public health advice in order to drive down infections.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Minister, by common consent, the British Government have been somewhat shambolic in their handling of the pandemic since its outset. I cannot point to a single thing that they have got right. Given what you said about the vaccine, it is unfortunate that we have to depend on them for the supply of it.

In light of what the Minister said about the phased approach, can he guarantee that all healthcare and social care workers will have access to the vaccine within a clearly defined time frame, particularly the staff at Altnagelvin Area Hospital and domiciliary care workers, who have been under considerable pressure for a long time?

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

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for her comments. However, as I am sure that she is aware, I do not agree with them with regard to the vaccine. If we had been left to procure the vaccine on our own, we would have neither the buying power nor the financial capability to pre-buy seven different vaccines to the extent that we have, or been able to provide the accreditation or certification that the MHRA has provided to allow us to be part of the first delivery of vaccines across the world. We are now delivering them into care homes and vaccinating their staff and residents.

With regard to the delivery of vaccines, we have already received upwards of 50,000 of the Pfizer vaccine, which allows us to vaccinate just over 20,000 individuals. As I have said, the JCVI has set clear prioritisation for those who receive the vaccine, and at certain levels. Therefore, as regards whether I can guarantee access to the vaccine, yes, I can, because we are part of that UK pre-buying, which will see a massive number of vaccines being made available to us. Additional vaccines, once they have received MHRA accreditation and approval, will also be part of the additional programme.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I want to put on record my thanks to the British Government for, first of all, bringing forward this incredible vaccine at this time, being the first in the world to do so, and ensuring that Northern Ireland is part of that supply, as is the rest of the UK.

When the vaccination programme has been completed in an individual care home, will restrictions on visiting be relaxed? How soon will we see that happen, given that many care home residents are, often, in the last years or months of their lives?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for that point. As we have made clear in the past, it is not the initial vaccination that is most important but the second one and giving it time for the efficacy to kick in. I can update the Member that, as of today, we have had vaccination teams across all five trusts and have vaccinated in up to 54 care homes. We have started with those that have the largest number of residents. That is just shy of 4,000 individuals, including care home residents and workers and the vaccination teams themselves.

While the vaccine provides a crucial tool to allow visiting to take place, we must ensure that not only do we get the first vaccination in place but we get the second one in place and encourage as many residents and staff to take up the offer of a free vaccine, which is delivered by the NHS and supported and paid for by the British Government.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

I, too, put on record my thanks to the UK Government for rolling out the vaccine; the first in the world to do so. Can the Minister outline plans for the roll-out of the vaccine in North Down and potential venues that are being looked at?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his request for a press release. I can give him the update that there will be no geographically specific priorities for an area. Those will stick strictly to the JCVI's accreditation and deliberations on who needs the vaccine most. As I said earlier, the venue that will be used in the Southern Trust area is the South Lake Leisure Centre in Craigavon. In the South Eastern Trust area, it will be the Ulster Hospital at Dundonald. That is where initial programmes will start. Care homes in the Member's constituency will also receive the vaccine for their residents and staff.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

2. Miss McIlveen asked the Minister of Health how much has been spent on training for those administering the COVID-19 vaccine programme to date. (AQO 1361/17-22)

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for her question. Training for those who administer the COVID-19 vaccine is mostly completed online. The HSC Clinical Education Centre has provided some one-to-one training under the service level agreement. To date, there have been no additional costs.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his answer. What consideration is being given to review the policy that only nurses who retired after 2015 can be added to the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) register when, clearly, a sizeable number of qualified people who retired prior to that date could assist with the vaccination programme?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

The Member makes a valid point about the cut-off date for accreditation. If she knows of anyone, I will gladly take their contact details. I have been contacted by a number of GPs who find themselves in exactly the same position with the timeline. However, they can engage, and, after an hour or an hour and a half of online training, they can be part of the vaccination programme. If the Member knows of individuals, I am happy to take their details. We are encouraged by the high numbers of people who have come forward to be part of this important programme. To date, 870 people have come forward to go through a process to assist in what will, hopefully, be mass vaccination programmes across the entirety of Northern Ireland, including North Down.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Public Health Agency, in common with many agencies, has been greatly challenged by the significant demands of COVID-19. Will the Minister ensure that the lessons learned and experience gained over recent months is retained so that the Public Health Agency emerges from this crisis with greater and wider capacity?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his question, although I am unsure how it links in with the substantive question from the Member for Strangford. However, I can answer that. There has been expansive investment in the PHA, not only in finance but in people, to ensure that it could complete all its duties over the period of the pandemic, including an impressive increase in the test, trace and protect system. It is now contacting well over 90% of individuals within a 24-hour period, and, to a lesser extent, within a 48-hour period, at a more effective level than other devolved Administrations. The strength of the Public Health Agency has been added to and improved and will continue to be invested in.

The First Minister and deputy First Minister and I visited our test, trace and protect system in the PHA building in County Hall, Ballymena, on Friday, and, as far as I am aware from their press statements and public statements, they were impressed with what they saw and the service being delivered.

Rosemary Barton (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome the quality training that has been given to the vaccinators, which maintains our health service's high professional standards. How many vaccinators has the Department employed to administer the vaccine?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for her question. As I said in answer to the original question, 870 people have come forward to be part of the vaccination programme. They are part of the initial wave of those who will receive the vaccine. Those 870 individuals have submitted application forms to help out as vaccinators during the programme. They will be supported by administrative workers, delivery workers, pharmacists and everybody else who is playing a vital role in making sure that we get the vaccine delivered in compliance with the strict delivery processes and management protocols.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

3. Mr Newton asked the Minister of Health what action he is taking to address waiting lists. (AQO 1362/17-22)

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Mr Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence, I ask for extra time to address this question as it is an important subject.

Elective care waiting times were unacceptable before COVID-19, and, unfortunately, they will be even worse after COVID-19, because the need to redirect HSC resources to respond to the pandemic has had an inevitable and serious impact on waiting lists. The spread of coronavirus is continuing to cause serious disruption to our health and social care system, and it was unavoidable that elective care activity would reduce due to the need to redeploy staff to COVID-related activity.

In the wake of the first wave of the pandemic, I was clear that rebuilding services across all programmes of care, including elective care, while protecting staff and the public from COVID-19 was a key priority for the health service. Thanks to the huge efforts of our health service staff, much progress was made to restart elective care services.

During the first wave, our health and social care system delivered 12,150 new outpatient consultations in April, and there were 29,163 in October. Some 4,859 inpatient or day-case procedures were delivered in April compared with 13,301 in October.

Similarly, there were 39,907 outpatient reviews in April compared with 56,071 in October. Overall, there was over 73% more activity in October than there was in April. Our surge and rebuild plans were effective in keeping services going.

Each trust surpassed its target for the period of July to September, but the pandemic has undoubtedly exacerbated what was already a crisis with waiting times. Given the reduction in the level of elective activity that can be delivered by trusts as they focus their efforts on responding to the pandemic, they have been utilising the local independent sector's capacity to support the delivery of core health service activities and the rebuilding of our services. During the period from 1 April to 15 November, approximately 3,500 patients had their procedures carried out in the independent sector, which was paid for by the health service.

In rebuilding services, trusts have taken into account new and innovative practices that were introduced during the first wave of the pandemic. For example, there has been a much greater use of technologies, such as telephone and virtual clinics. Outpatient appointments have, where possible and appropriate, moved to telephone appointments. In addition, a growing number of specialities are adopting virtual clinics, using videoconferencing. Embedding those recent innovations will be essential to maximising elective activity during the pandemic and in the future.

Waiting lists were a clear priority in New Decade, New Approach. However, those plans have been delayed by the pandemic, and I am conscious that public spending is likely to be very constrained next year and that all Departments will be facing serious funding pressures. Tackling waiting lists will not be possible without sustained and substantial investment and additional staffing.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his very detailed answer; it is obviously a subject that he is taking very seriously. I pay tribute to the Minister because, when I have raised matters on waiting lists or when procedures will take place, he has always been extremely helpful.

Minister, the picture that you have painted is a rather bleak one for those who are in the diagnostic area awaiting treatments, such as cancer patients and diabetes patients. From what you have said, Minister, I assume that you will be making a bid to the Executive for increased funding in the forthcoming days. If that funding becomes available, when might we expect to see waiting lists coming down so that they are approaching a level that one would see in a normal situation?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his pertinent question. With regard to bidding, I will be chancing my arm for as much as I possibly can get to tackle waiting lists. As I said, when I took up this post back in January, waiting lists were an Executive priority and there were additional moneys in New Decade, New Approach assigned to address them because, as an Executive, an Assembly and a society, we realised that they were too long.

Waiting lists have got longer, and we are looking at how we can reconfigure some of our services from day elective units in Lagan Valley, which I visited last week. The surgeons, the nurses and the rest of the staff there have exciting plans on how they can reconfigure the way in which we deliver services across Northern Ireland. One of the things that has come out of COVID has been a breaking down of silos that were not created intentionally or systemically but that grew over time. We have seen surgeons from Belfast being willing to travel to the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH) and take lists and patients with them to make use of our facilities that are in another part of Northern Ireland. We are no longer looking at simply working in trusts or trying to centralise services; we are looking at a regional approach. I am hopeful that, once we get through this pandemic, which I firmly believe that we will, the new working procedures and collaborations that we have seen across a number of specialities in a number of disciplines will make a serious dent in our waiting lists. Additional funding will be necessary to do that, because with that we can support more staff to deliver the services that we need.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

In the past, some have used the cross-border directive as a means of getting treated in the Twenty-six Counties because of the long waiting lists. Minister, what actions have you taken to ensure that that will still be available post-Brexit?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

That conversation is ongoing, not just between the Irish Government and us but, because some parts of this are devolved and some are centralised, between the Irish Government and Westminster. A three-way conversation with officials is ongoing. We will raise the subject again at the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council that is due to take place in a few days' time. We are fully aware of not only patients from Northern Ireland traveling to the Republic of Ireland but large numbers of patients from the Republic of Ireland coming to Northern Ireland for cataract operations and suchlike. We already have, as we touched on yesterday, a number of cross-border working relationships: children's cardiac surgery is being performed in Dublin; and Altnagelvin provides support for cancer services and palliative care. Those will work regardless of Brexit. They are negotiated relationships with the Irish Government, and they will continue. We will continue to build on them by looking, for example, at how we can provide some kidney transplant and other organ transplant services for patients from the Irish Republic.

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

Does the Minister have an update on waiting lists in the Western Trust, which was recently identified as having some of the highest waiting lists in Northern Ireland?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for her question. I do not have those statistics to hand today but I can certainly provide her with an update. We are looking at a more regionalised approach to waiting lists across a number of disciplines. I would like to see the same level of access to a procedure no matter where somebody lives in Northern Ireland. It should not depend solely on the capacity in one trust. As I said earlier, one of the things to emerge from COVID is greater collaboration. Surgeons and patients are more willing to travel, and we are able to deliver services to people when they need it, but it will not always be on their doorstep. As politicians, we often face that challenge in our health service, and campaigns are run by people trying to retain everything on their doorstep. Patients and health professionals are willing to travel, so the Assembly's support for the work that our health service is willing to do to tackle our waiting lists and support patients would be well placed.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I am led to believe that no neonatal cots are available at any hospital in Northern Ireland or, indeed, the island of Ireland. Will you, Minister, clarify whether that is the position? If it is, what urgent action is being taken to avoid transfers to GB?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for her question. I am unsure of what exactly she means by "neonatal cots" or the point of time at which none was available. The departmental website details the number of available ICU paediatric beds, and I do not think that it has shown that they were completely full at any time. I am happy to take up that specific matter with the Member after Question Time.

We are able to transfer patients, especially paediatric patients, to the Republic of Ireland. We have built up a relationship, especially in critical care, so that, if need be, patients can move from North to South or from South to North. It is also important that patients can move from west to east because, as I am fully aware, when we need to send patients, including vulnerable children, for specialist surgery, it is important that we have access to skilled professionals in Birmingham hospital and Evelina hospital. Those working relationships are in place.

If the Member provides me with details, I will follow up on the specific issue that she raised about no neonatal cots being available on the island.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

4. Mr O'Dowd asked the Minister of Health when health and social care (HSC) trust staff will be reimbursed for pay lost due to industrial action that took place 12 months ago. (AQO 1363/17-22)

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his question. The Executive have discussed this matter many times and sought numerous pieces of legal advice. I am pleased to report that the Executive agreed to my latest proposals at our meeting last Tuesday. The regional Business Services Organisation (BSO) has been instructed to make the necessary arrangements for the reimbursement of any deductions previously made to pay.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his answer. My question was tabled before last week's very welcome announcement. I may claim in the press that my question forced you to do it. Can he indicate whether those nurses will have that money in their wage packet before the Christmas break?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

The Member will not be the only one to take credit for my announcements. Like anything else, success and delivery have many fathers.

It is hoped that the payments will be made by the Business Services Organisation in time for the December payroll. BSO has done a tremendous amount of work since I gave it the direction to try to get that money in place. I can guarantee that, if it is not in the December payroll, the money will definitely be paid in January. Our intention is to get it out to as many as possible before Christmas. I thank and congratulate the Business Services Organisation for moving so swiftly to deliver it.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Does the Minister acknowledge the vital role that is played by student nurses and midwives who are working alongside paid — albeit underpaid — health workers in extreme circumstances? Will he reconsider the decision not to pay them for their priceless contribution at this time, when the situation because of COVID appears as perilous as ever?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

That is yet another question that is clearly beyond the scope of the original question. The Minister may or may not choose to answer it.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Thank you for your direction, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I often answer many such questions in here.

The Member said that a decision was made not to pay student nurses, but it is a regulatory requirement that nursing and midwifery students must complete 2,300 clinical placement hours in order to be able to join the NMC register. The emergency standards ended on 30 September, and students returned to supernumerary status. There are no plans at present to reinstate those arrangements. That is a UK-wide position. The Nursing and Midwifery Council has issued a joint statement, which was signed by the four UK Chief Nursing Officers, confirming the present position on keeping programmes on track and safeguarding supernumerary status. As Members will be aware, that decision was taken by the Nursing and Midwifery Council in order to meet its requirements for students to be able to complete the 2,300 clinical placement hours. It is not that we do not value greatly the work that they do and the commitment that they give to those roles, even in a training capacity, because we do. The statement was made by the Nursing and Midwifery Council regarding the supernumerary status of nursing students.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

Is the Minister concerned that nurses will be forced to strike again in future, given that, to date, there has been no movement on the safe staffing legislation?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I do not see any opportunity that would move nurses to take strike action, because I do not recognise the statement that there has been no movement to date on safe staffing. There have been conversations about the terms of reference, and there has been engagement on workforce planning between my Department and the unions that are involved.

The Member will be fully aware that I and the Executive gave a commitment when we were able to bring our nurses and other healthcare workers off the picket line earlier this year that not only pay parity but safe staffing would be a priority for me, my Department and the Executive. That work is ongoing, and a number of avenues are being looked at — whether we follow the Scottish or the Welsh model, whether it requires legislation or a framework model, and what can be done in the time that we have left in the rest of the mandate to bring forward that legislation — to make sure that safe staffing and the rest of the framework commitments that the Executive signed up to are delivered.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I call Sinéad Ennis, but the Member may not get a supplementary question.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

5. Ms Ennis asked the Minister of Health whether guidance on visiting residents of care homes over the Christmas period will be revised. (AQO 1364/17-22)

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for her question. On 10 December, my Department issued additional guidance on Christmas visiting arrangements in care home settings, and that is available on the nidirect and Department of Health websites. That additional guidance emphasises that care homes should recognise the right to a family life for those in their care. In particular, it acknowledges the importance that many people attach to seeing family and friends over the Christmas period.

Care homes are asked to make particular efforts at this time to facilitate visiting, in line with the regional visiting guidance, by offering a range of options for visiting. They include indoor visiting rooms or areas, visiting pods, outdoor visiting and virtual visits that can take place in line with the care home's visiting policy. Visits into care homes are preferable to those out of care homes by the residents. Longer visits away from the home carry greater risk. Shorter visits, ideally, for a few hours, are, therefore, preferable if a visit away from the care home is to take place.

If a visit out of the care home is agreed, a number of measures to mitigate the risk of bringing infection back into the care home are identified. When away from the care home, the resident should be in contact with only one household bubble. Members of that bubble should strictly limit their contact with others in the two weeks before a visit from the care home resident. Other precautions, such as good personal hygiene and regular handwashing by everyone, should be maintained. On returning to the home, even if visiting away for only a few hours, the resident will have to self-isolate. The impact of that period of isolation on the resident, as well as on the care home's ability to accommodate such periods of self-isolation, should be carefully considered by the resident, family, friends and care home staff in any discussions.

I recognise the need for families to come together at Christmas, but it is critical that we keep doing everything that we can to stop the virus spreading as we begin the process of vaccinating those who are considered to be most at risk from coronavirus.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

That is the end of our period for listed questions to the Minister of Health. We move on to topical questions.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

T1. Ms Bunting asked the Minister of Health when he anticipates a move to a rapid testing regime for care homes. (AQT 841/17-22)

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for her question regarding the support that we have given to care homes. We are managing 87 care homes that have had outbreaks. It is a challenging time for those homes and the residents in them, but I welcome today's indicator that we are beginning to see that number decrease. That has been brought about by the testing regime, in which we test weekly, that we have in place. Due to the weekly programme, we have seen a greater ability to identify asymptomatic residents and staff. Only 40 of the 87 confirmed homes are currently showing symptomatic residents. Our weekly testing programme has picked those up.

My expert advisory group on testing is keeping an eye on the mass testing programme that we have seen being piloted in parts of south-east England to make sure that we can use that testing to maximum efficiency and efficacy not only to facilitate support for the care home residents and staff but to allow safer visiting.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. The Minister will be aware that numerous people have underlying conditions that will prevent them from taking the vaccine, but they will remain vulnerable until an alternative is found. When does he envisage something being available to protect people who have underlying conditions and who remain vulnerable in these circumstances?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

We have been working closely with, and taking guidance from, MHRA and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation with regard to what vaccines are suitable for certain cohorts. It is a welcome step that the Pfizer vaccine is suitable and can be used for care home residents and staff, because we can get it. That vaccination programme has been started. As I said, just over 4,000 people have been vaccinated since we received that accreditation. As each vaccine is accredited by MHRA, we look at the green book guidance to see what clinical groups it is suitable for and to ensure that we know what clinical groups it is not suitable for. That is the guidance and training that is given to all our vaccinators before they go out to deliver a vaccine.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

T2. Ms Armstrong asked the Minister of Health to confirm, in light of the fact that some pupils in Northern Ireland will be in school on 21 and 22 December, who will be responsible for contact tracing any pupils who test positive after that time, given that it is her understanding that the PHA’s dedicated education contact tracing team will close for Christmas on 23 December at 4.00 pm. (AQT 842/17-22)

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

The PHA's contact tracing team; the greater team will take over what has been the work of a very specialised cell to support principals and staff.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Parents are not aware of how to report this, because children will be out of school at that stage. As a parent of a pupil, I ask whether any work will be done by the PHA and yourselves to make sure that that goes through the education system before children finish for Christmas.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Specific guidance will be provided, I am sure, by the Education Authority to schools. However, I will ask and ensure that the PHA carries forward that communication, so that a clear line of sight and guidance is there and accessible. Any child who presents with symptoms of COVID-19 goes through the same process as an adult when it comes to identifying or accessing testing after that point, if they are not in school.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

T3. Mr McAleer asked the Minister of Health to state his advice for care homes that do not have the capacity to manage situations in which residents have to isolate for 14 days following an outside visit, which was a requirement that he stated in response to a previous question. (AQT 843/17-22)

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member. That is part of the guidance that we have given for care home visiting over Christmas. It is important for those individuals and families who are able to take someone out of a care home for a family visit during this special time of year that we take the same precautions when that individual returns to the care home, so there are additional pressures. That is what I said with regard to someone coming back into a care home as well. On returning to the care home, the resident will have to self-isolate. The impact of that period of isolation on the resident has to be taken into consideration. What may be a supportive and welcome three-hour respite over the Christmas period back in the family home has to be balanced with the challenges to that individual of the period of self-isolation that they will have to take part in when they return to the care home. That is why I said in an earlier answer that that should be carefully considered by residents, families, friends and care home staff. The more residents who leave a care home and return, the more pressure will be put on some of the care home facilities with regard to being able to provide that supportive self-isolation.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

The Minister will be aware that visiting restrictions also remain in place in maternity wards, for example. Has the Minister any plans to review that in the coming weeks?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Our visiting policies are kept under constant review, especially with regard to where we see the coronavirus spread across the community. Where we see increased community spread, we have to add additional restrictions on visiting capacity. Until we get into a place where we see a continued reduction in the number of COVID cases that are active in our community, it is highly unlikely that we will see a massive change in any visiting policy for hospitals. We must remember, even coming up to Christmas, that the virus does not recognise the time of the year, the calendar or social events. We always have to take the same due care and caution, no matter what the time of year. That is what the Member's original question was about.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

T4. Mr Beattie asked the Minister of Health, in an attempt to get away from COVID and to focus on some good news stories that, sometimes, get missed in all the doom and gloom, and maybe even to bring a smile to the Minister’s face, to outline, following the end of the consultation process in February, the next steps in the process to bring an opt-out organ donation system to Northern Ireland, given that, come March 2021, Northern Ireland will be the only part of the UK without such a system. (AQT 844/17-22)

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member. I try to smile occasionally, but it is not easy, being an Ulster Unionist.

[Laughter.]

The Member will be fully aware of the work that was originally commenced on this issue by our party colleague Jo-Anne Dobson. It is something that we, as a party, have committed to in the past. That is why I was pleased to launch the public consultation on the introduction of a statutory soft opt-out system earlier this week. That consultation runs until 19 February. At that point, my Department will publish details of public engagement events that will take place in the new year to ensure that all stakeholders have an opportunity to hear about the proposals and submit responses. Legislation will be required to give effect to these proposals and, following the consultation period, it is my intention to bring a draft Bill to the Assembly at the earliest opportunity, subject to the advice of the Office of the Legislative Counsel and the agreement of the Executive, within the current mandate, if feasible.

I encourage everyone to read about the consultation and to submit a response on the Department's website. In the meantime, I urge everyone to discuss their wishes for organ donation with their family and friends. I look forward to the support of the Health Committee in bringing forward the legislation as expediently and quickly as possible.