northern ireland assembly Monday 14 January 2008 Assembly Business: Ministerial Statement: Executive Committee Business: Private Members’ Business: Oral Answers to Questions: Private Members’ Business: Adjournment: The Assembly met at 12.00 noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Children (Emergency Protection Orders) Bill Royal Assent Mr Speaker: I wish to inform Members that the Children (Emergency Protection Orders) Bill has received Royal Assent. The Children (Emergency Protection Orders) Act Northern Ireland 2007 became law on 14 December 2007. December Fisheries Council Meeting Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development that she wishes to make a statement regarding the outcome of the December Fisheries Council meeting. The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (Ms Gildernew): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about the outcome of the Fisheries Council meeting that was held in Brussels on 18 and 19 December to determine the fishing opportunities for our local fleet for 2008. Members will be aware that the Fisheries Council meets each December to reach agreement on the fishing opportunities for the following year. The outcome of that meeting is a detailed regulation that sets the total allowable catches (TACs), representing the maximum quantities of fish that can be caught from specific stocks in different sea areas in accordance with the management objectives. As well as TACs and quotas, the regulation details the number of days that vessels may spend at sea. The overarching concern is to ensure that a system of fisheries management is in place to ensure that there are sufficient stocks from which everyone can fish in the years to come. The December council meeting represents the end of a long process involving engagement between the European Commission and member states at official and ministerial level. The process begins with the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), which compiles scientific evidence on the state of fish stocks from many different sources. Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) scientists contribute to that body of knowledge from the research on the Irish Sea that is carried out annually. ICES makes recommendations to the European Commission on the TACs for more than 100 stocks, which are then considered by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). STECF comprises national experts, representatives from the fishing industry and other stakeholders. Key negotiations also take place with non-EU countries, such as Norway, that have an interest in the same fishing grounds or stocks. Throughout the process, member states make representations to the Commission and submit technical papers to support the case that they are making on behalf of their fishing industries. In the lead-up to the December council meeting, Fisheries Ministers Jonathan Shaw, Richard Lochhead and I attended two meetings with Commissioner Borg to brief him on the key issues that are facing our fishermen and our priorities for the December council meeting. During those meetings, I was able to press the case for an increase in the Irish Sea haddock quota and for maintaining TAC levels on other stocks that are important to our fishermen. The delegation also presented strong arguments against draconian cuts in the days that may be fished and presented alternative proposals that it considered would better meet fisheries management objectives without the adverse impacts that blunt across-the-board cuts would bring on the industry. I believe that those meetings played an important part in shaping the Commission’s final proposals, which were further refined through negotiation at the Council of Ministers. In the four months leading up to the December council meeting, my officials worked closely with their counterparts to assemble evidence, to agree priorities and the approach to the negotiations. I also met my fellow Fisheries Ministers on a number of occasions to confirm our negotiating priorities in the light of emerging information that ensured that the issues facing our fishing industry were heard and understood. During that time, there was a series of meetings with fishing industry representatives in order to take their views and to explain our approach. The priority areas identified for the local industry were agreed with them, and I had several helpful discussions with the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development in the lead-up to the council meeting. The Committee also met Commissioner Borg in order to support the case that I was proposing. Committee members heard from the Commissioner at first hand his determination to restrict fishing effort on vulnerable cod stocks. I was particularly delighted that we were able to meet my fellow Fisheries Minister, Mary Coughlan TD, in the run-up to the December negotiations, when we were able to discuss areas of common interest. The shopping list assembled by Jonathan Shaw, Richard Lochhead and I was formidable, and it was more extensive than those from other member states. The key issue for us was to resist the blunt cuts that had been proposed by the Commission on the number of days that can be fished by vessels in areas affected by the Commission’s cod-recovery zone. As I mentioned earlier, we wanted the Commission to adopt a different, more focused approach that would better protect vulnerable stocks and provide incentives for the industry to engage in responsible fishing practices. That was a tough battle, and the Commission was determined to reduce the effort on cod to help to rebuild stocks. However, the Commission was convinced by our arguments that its proposed 25% cuts in days at sea for white-fish and prawn vessels operating in the Irish Sea were unjustified, and it has finally proposed cuts of 18% for white-fish vessels and 10% for prawn vessels. That was accepted as part of the wider package of fishing opportunities. It is important that Members understand that our fleet will not necessarily be restricted by the 10% and 18% cuts, which would result in the prawn fleet having 184 days at sea and the white-fish vessels having either 146 days or 174 days at sea, depending on the fishing gear deployed. Over 95% of our fleet targets prawns, fishing mainly in the Irish Sea, and they catch other species as a by-catch. However, at individual vessel level, their impact on cod stock is minimal. Under the rules contained in the 2008 TAC and Quotas Regulation, vessels that have a track record for landing less than 5% cod can get 204 days at sea, and those that land less than 5% cod, sole and plaice can get 280 days at sea. For vessels that do not have a track record, there is an opportunity to participate in initiatives involving on-board observers, which would lead to the provision of similar days-at-sea allowances for them. The majority of vessels that fish for prawns will be able to take advantage of one of those provisions. That means that, if they choose to take advantage of the provisions, they will not suffer any loss of days, compared with 2007. Furthermore, those vessels that are involved in the Irish Sea data enhancement project could gain up to 12 further days from taking part in the project. We also successfully negotiated provisions for managing days differently, and derogations for discard-reduction and cod-avoidance plans, which would also enable vessels to obtain extra days. The fleet does not take up the full number of days that are available to it. That means that the most active vessels are still able to transfer in days sufficient for their needs from less-active vessels. I wish to emphasise that the headline cuts in days do not represent the full story. There are other choices for our fishermen that allow them to fully fish the quota that is available to them. We successfully minimised the broad cuts that were proposed by the Commission and secured agreement for a system that provided appropriate incentives for fishermen. My officials will be discussing with the industry how the new provisions on days at sea can best be utilised by the local fleet. I turn to the key stocks that are fished by our fishermen. There was a rollover for the prawn quota, which is by far the most important fishery for us. I secured a 5% increase in the haddock quota, in the face of an initial Commission proposal for a 15% cut. That is a lesser increase than I and the industry had hoped for. The Commission was very reluctant to budge from its initial proposal, only agreeing the 5% increase very late in the negotiations. Right until the final moments of those negotiations, we pressed the Commission for a larger increase, but it would not agree. I also managed to get the Commission to agree to bring forward a proposal next year to establish a separate haddock TAC for the Irish Sea. Until now, the Irish Sea area has been part of a much wider management area, which includes the Celtic Sea and Atlantic waters on the west coast of Ireland. That approach will ensure that the TAC for the Irish Sea that is fished by our industry will better reflect the biological structure of those stocks, and not be influenced by changes in the wider area 7. The Commission has also proposed an 8% cut in the TAC for Irish Sea herring, and a 6% reduction for plaice. We successfully argued for a rollover in the TAC for both stocks, and for the herring fishery in the Clyde area, which is fished mainly by vessels from the North. We have also secured an acknowledgement from the Commission that there is a strong case for the removal of the seasonal closure of the herring fishery on the Douglas Bank spawning grounds, east of the Isle of Man, once the formal advisory processes have been completed. The industry here has sought that measure for some time. There have been particular concerns about the demise of cod stocks in the Irish Sea. Against a background of scientific evidence recommending a zero catch, the Commission was determined to see through a 25% cut in the quota. However, that was limited to an 18% cut. I pressed for a smaller reduction, but the Commission would not agree, on account of the scientific advice. There has been a fair amount of media attention on that species, and some commentators have either been misinformed, or have misreported the facts on the council results. In 2007, our share of the Irish Sea cod TAC was 421 tons and, following the December council, that has been cut by 18% to 345 tons for 2008. The cod available to our fishermen for 2008 will also be increased through post-council swaps and the unused quota that has been banked from 2007. For 2008, there will be at least 495 tons of cod quota available: 345 tons from the council, augmented by 150 tons in post-council swaps, which I authorised, plus whatever cod can be banked from 2007. Our white-fish vessels had, until Christmas 2007, caught approximately 420 tons. I am, therefore, satisfied that the cod quota available for our industry in 2008 is more than was caught in 2007. I am grateful for this opportunity to explain to the Assembly how the December council has affected fishing opportunities for our fleet in 2008. It is important to realise that this process is a negotiation that involves many member states, which have differing and sometimes contradictory priorities. The Commission’s overriding concern is to ensure that the fish resources that are available to member states are fished in a way that is sustainable, while minimising the impact that fishing has on the wider marine environment. I share that objective, and I wish to ensure that the fisheries for which I am responsible continue to be managed in a sustainable way. Given the nature of the negotiations, whereby the outcome is determined by member states reaching a consensus with the Commission, I am satisfied that — in the circumstances prevailing in Brussels in December — I obtained the best possible deal for our fishing industry. That has involved a lot of hard work. I and my officials tried to be open and transparent in how we prepared for the negotiations. I wish to thank the industry for the part that is has played. It is important that we build on the progress that has been made, and that we begin now the process of putting together the best case that we can for the 2008 negotiations. Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. 12.15 pm The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development (Mr Elliott): At this stage, I want to put on record my thanks to the Minister for bringing forward the statement on the fishing industry. However, on behalf of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, I have to say, in the absence of the Chairperson, that the Committee does not share the same optimism about that announcement and the EU decision as the Minister and her officials appear to do. The Committee does not believe that it represents the best possible deal that could have been reached — a view shared by the fishing industry. Is the Minister suggesting that she and her Department are prepared to sacrifice the white-fish industry in Northern Ireland in order to achieve that agreement? Will she accept that, following the Irish Republic’s refusal to swap back to the same levels as last year, there is, in fact, a 33% reduction in the amount of cod available to our fleet, as opposed to that being caught? Ms Gildernew: The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development asks whether I am prepared to sacrifice the white-fish industry. The short answer to that is no. However, the reality is — and we have to work with the reality — that 95% of the industry either catches or processes prawns. There are only two white-fish vessels. It must be understood that we have to protect the industry as a whole and that we have to work as best we can. We were faced with scientific evidence that suggested a zero catch in cod. We resisted a 25% cut in white fish and got it down to 18%, which applies right around these islands. There is no scientific evidence of cod recovery in the Irish Sea. That is the reality with which we must deal. With regard to the 33% reduction referred to by the Member, it is necessary to compare like with like. The Hague Preference, which is what he is talking about, was also invoked last year and in previous years by the Twenty-six Counties. It was also brought in this year by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Minister. The quotas, the days at sea and the environmental aspects — for example, the Irish Sea data enhancement project — that we achieved represent a very good deal for our white-fish vessels, considering the scientific evidence. It is also a good deal for the majority of our industry. Mr Wells: Will the Minister accept that if that is the best possible deal, heaven help our fishing industry when she comes back with a bad deal? Does she accept that the fishing industry in County Down is suffering death by a thousand cuts? She talked about the deal. Let us examine that deal. Prawn days are down by 10% to 184 days. Three years ago, that was 264 days. That is what is happening in the industry. The figure for white fish is down by 18%. The TAC for cod is down by 33%. Will the Minister accept that one of the reasons behind that is the selfish approach by her Irish counterpart, who refused to swap back the tonnage that was given up by Northern Ireland’s fishermen? What did she do apart from cosying up to her counterpart in the Irish Republic — Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to please come to the question. Mr Wells: — to stop that happening? Ms Gildernew: I am not sure what I am supposed to say. I did not hear a question in there. Does the Member want to ask a question? [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. I remind Members that there has already been a ministerial statement. It is important that we now have questions to the Minister about that statement. Mr Brolly: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Given the very poor state of cod stocks in the Irish Sea, is it reasonable for the European Union to seek such large cuts? Ms Gildernew: The main cod spawning grounds in the Irish Sea are protected from direct fishing by the spring closure. The current cod TAC for the Irish Sea is only 8% of the level that it was 20 years ago. That level mainly permits the landing of small by-catches of cod from the prawn fleet. A zero catch level would simply result in small by-catches being discarded. Although by-catch levels are low, we are nevertheless continuing to conduct research, with the industry’s help, to identify selective gear that will help us to reduce cod-by-catch levels even further. However, as I have already pointed out, there is not yet the scientific evidence for increasing the cod quota. We shall work with scientific experts, and with the fishing industry, to see how we might play a responsible role in the management of our fishing stocks and fishing efforts. Mr P J Bradley: I, too, thank the Minister for her statement. In it, she said that it was a tough battle to resist cuts, and I imagine that it was. Something good that came from the negotiations is the 5% increase in haddock quotas. There could easily have been a 15% cut, so that news is to be welcomed. However, as a South Down representative, I have difficulty in accepting all the achievements that the Minister claims. Today’s statement is similar to the press release that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development issued on 19 December 2007. It was not her own wording — it was worded for her — but its headline read: “Gildernew delivers fishing industry priorities”. In that press release, describing the fishermen, the Minister said: “their needs have been heard and met.” Having spoken to them since the negotiations concluded, I did not find that to be the view among trawlermen. I ask the Minister a simple question: will she please explain why Northern Ireland’s fishermen, and their organisations, express completely different views to hers on the outcome of the talks? Ms Gildernew: The fishing industry’s views very much formed part of our preparations for the December Fisheries Council negotiations. Indeed, its representatives were in attendance in Brussels. Perhaps this was the first time that a Minister had done this, but I met with representatives of our industry during part of the negotiations. I left the Commission building to brief them on what had been discussed up to that point. Therefore, we were working hand in hand with the industry in order to agree our priorities. We knew what those priorities were going in, and those priorities had been agreed. We also knew what the Commission’s likely approach would be, and that we would not simply get everything that we wanted. However, we kept the industry fully apprised of the situation. Telephone calls were made through the night, and a meeting was held early the next morning, after the second compromise had been reached. How the fishing industry chooses to report the negotiations is entirely up to it — I cannot influence what the industry says. I will be meeting with the fishing industry again, because this is an ongoing situation, and we will want to assess our priorities for the 2008 meeting of the Fisheries Council. I also want to hold a pre-emptive meeting with Commissioner Borg in the coming weeks on this year’s negotiations. We asked for what the industry had requested, but we knew that we would not achieve all our aims. A difficulty arises in negotiations when other member states agree to a compromise position, and negotiating currency diminishes as more member states agree that they can live with the Commission’s proposals. That is what happened. Therefore, we were never going to get absolutely everything that we wanted, but we got the best deal that we possibly could, and we have explained that to the industry. We got the absolute best deal that we could for it. Our fishermen can catch as much cod, and more, than they caught in 2007. Ninety-five per cent of our fleet fish for prawns, and we have achieved a rollover in our prawn quotas. Moreover, as the Member has pointed out, the Commission was looking for a 15% reduction in quotas for haddock, which we know is extremely important to Kilkeel, but, in getting a 5% increase in our haddock stock, we overturned that by 20%. Overall, we have fought very hard for the fishing industry, with which we have worked throughout this long and protracted process. Mr Shannon: Undoubtedly, the Minister will be aware that the fishing industry and its representative organisations are very unhappy with the outcome of the December Fisheries Council meeting in Brussels. The reduction in quotas and in the number of days at sea that our fleet may spend strikes a blow to the heart of the fishing industry and puts a question mark over the industry’s viability, not to mention its future. Some time ago, the Minister, in reply to a question from me, stated that she would be a champion for the fishing industry. Will she, therefore, explain why Scotland got a better deal in the negotiations than Northern Ireland? Scottish fishermen were granted more days at sea than their Northern Ireland counterparts. Scotland also achieved better fish quotas than we did. Will the Minister explain what went wrong at the Fisheries Council meeting in Brussels? More importantly, what help can she give to our fishing industry and our fishing fleet, in particular the white-fish fleet? Will the Minister consider tie-up aid as one solution to a very serious problem? I ask my questions because the future of fishing is at stake. Ms Gildernew: I thank the Member for his questions, and hope that I can cover all of them. The Scottish quota that he mentioned is primarily North Sea cod. The west of Scotland TAC and quota on herring, haddock, prawn, and so on is the same as Northern Ireland’s; therefore, by and large, Scotland’s quotas and TACs are the same as ours. There is, however, a very strong cod-recovery scientific-evidence base for the North Sea, where the cuts have not been as draconian and difficult to live with. Although there is scientific evidence to support a cod-recovery plan in the North Sea, the Commission nevertheless made a reduction; however, that was less — 10% instead of 18%. We deal with scientific realities and we must understand that scientists are there to ensure that stocks are not over-fished to the point where there is no more cod to catch. We must manage sensibly, and consider the marine environment. I take the Member’s point, however; the fishing industry is in a very difficult position. I have seen, and heard about at first hand, some of the pressures, and not all of those concern TACs and quotas. For example, the high cost of fuel is one pressure, and the Department is considering what can be done in that regard by the European Fisheries Fund. The Member mentioned transitional aid. That was not paid in 2006-07, because it was found to be unjustifiable on economic grounds. However, I am prepared to ask officials to determine whether anything can be done about that. At this stage, I cannot give the Member a straight answer. He is correct that I fight very hard for the fishing industry. I have made the point strongly at every meeting with the European Commission and with the presidency of the EU Council that our fishing industry is vital, not only economically but socially and culturally, and that we must find a way to keep it in business. It concerns me that scientific evidence, and the way that the fishing industry is going, indicate that, eventually, we will come to a point where the industry is no longer viable. I work hard to ensure that we do not reach that point and that we continue to crawl our way back up the line. I am committed to our fishing industry and to the people who work day and daily on our seas, and who often take their lives in their hands. I am very sympathetic to the fishing industry and the pressures on it, and I want to do all that I can to help. Mr McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, Cheann Comhairle. Tugaim mo chéad buíochas don Aire as a ráiteas. I thank the Minister for her statement. What assistance will she provide to the fleet in cutting fuel costs? Ms Gildernew: I thank the Member for his question. Members will be aware that, last year, the European Commission confirmed that membership subsidy of the cost of fuel constituted operating aid, or state aid, and is, therefore, incompatible with the treaty. However, the new European Fisheries Fund affords opportunities to the fishing industry to become energy efficient, through such measures as grant aid to support the purchase of more fuel-efficient engines, thereby reducing fuel costs. The Department will consult stakeholders in March on an operational programme for the fund’s implementation here, and I hope that the purchase of such engines can be supported. Mrs I Robinson: I have several points to put to the Minister. Over the years, the Northern Ireland fishing fleet was honourable in the tie-up scheme to protect the fishing stocks and encourage improvement. If we are to believe all that the scientists have indicated, why is there now no scientific evidence to show that that helped the depleted fishing stocks? Secondly — and my colleague touched on the matter — will the Minister tell me how she intends to assist our fishermen financially? 12.30 pm When the fishermen reach the meagre quotas, they will spend most of the year tied up, despite having to pay for the maintenance of their boats and their mortgages and despite having children to feed. Those payments must be made all year round, not just on the meagre days that have been granted out of the horse-trading — or fish-trading, if I might use that phrase — that took place in Europe. Ms Gildernew: The industry has worked well with us in the past in attempting to get the stocks back to where we want them to be, and I hope that that good work will continue. The tie-up aid that the Member mentioned was paid in 2004-05; however, it has not been paid since, because the economic grounds to do so have not existed. I have a great deal of sympathy with the socio-economic situation of fishermen; I have heard about it first-hand and, indeed, received correspondence from the Member about the pressures that our fishing industry faces. There are measures in the European fisheries fund that allow for diversification, if that is what is felt to be necessary. There will be consultation on those matters, and we will be glad to hear the Member’s views on how best to help fishing families to get out of this difficult situation. The Member is right to say that pressures exist, and I accept that it is becoming increasingly difficult to make a living out of fishing. I want to find ways to enhance fishermen’s overall profitability. We must remember that we should not confuse matters: for example, the prawn industry accounts for 95% of the overall industry for both processing and catch. We have over 100 prawn boats, but two cod boats, and although we are working hard on behalf of the entire industry, we must remember those realities. Therefore, we will consider all the points that we can, and, as I said to the Member’s colleague, I will ask officials to examine whether transitional aid can be applied. I am not closing my mind to any suggestion that may help the industry. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClarty] in the Chair) Mr Savage: I thank the Minister for her statement. Does she agree that the Assembly needs to make fishermen in Northern Ireland a priority? Does she also agree that the way in which the negotiations take place in Europe must be changed fundamentally in order to end the current annual spectacle of last-minute bargaining? If so, what will she do to bring about that situation? Ms Gildernew: In the overall scheme of things, it is a bit strange that the December Fisheries Council always meets so close to Christmas. We were worried about inclement weather, and at the meetings that were held the year before last, there were some difficulties about people getting back in time for Christmas. However, if the Fisheries Council were to meet in a different format, we would never get agreement. That is because everybody is concerned about their respective fishing industries and how their overall economic climates will be affected. It is difficult enough as it is to get agreement, but if the meetings were conducted in any other way, it might never be reached. Therefore, I am not sure whether there is any appetite in the Commission to change how the negotiations are carried out. However, I assure the Member that we did not leave everything to the last minute. We had a series of meetings, including two with Commissioner Borg in advance of the Fisheries Council meeting, and along with representatives from England and Scotland, we held meetings about priorities. We also had meetings with industry representatives on priorities, and I visited fishing ports and went on the Corystes, which is a ship that is used for scientific research. Therefore, a huge amount of work was done before the December Fisheries Council meeting occurred. We must look at the situation in context. The fisheries sector is one part of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, and, as I have said already, it is an important part. As the Member is only too well aware, pressures exist in other sectors — for example, the red meat industry. Therefore, I must manage my time and effort to ascertain how to address the fisheries situation. I have committed myself to going back to Brussels in the next weeks to meet again with Commissioner Borg, but I must also bear in mind that I have meetings to attend with Mariann Fischer Boel, the Commissioner who deals with agriculture and rural development. We must continue to try to punch above our weight to ensure that we get the best deal not just for our fishermen, but for our farmers and our rural development community. I assure the Member that I am using all the time that is available to me to deal with the issue and that I am not leaving everything to the last minute. The series of meetings to ensure that we got the best deal that we could was very long and protracted, and the industry had been very much a priority throughout that process. Mr W Clarke: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister and her team for their efforts. Credit is also due to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, which has made this matter its number-one priority. As someone from South Down who has met representatives of the industry, I believe that one of the biggest issues is the need to modernise the fleet, which consists of boats that are 30 or 40 years old, compared to vessels in the South, which are between five and 10 years old. Will money and resources be made available to build a new fleet? Ms Gildernew: I thank the Member for his question. I take his point — it was very welcome that the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development met Commissioner Borg in Brussels, heard at first hand how difficult the negotiation was going to be, and heard the commissioner’s views on protecting cod stocks. The Committee’s support was very much appreciated. I believe that the best results are achieved when we work as a team to secure the best deal for the industry. As for the purchase of new boats, the European Union ended grant aid for the construction of new vessels at the end of 2004, following a review of the European common fisheries policy in 2002. That move recognised that, at a time when there was overcapacity in fleets for the fishing opportunities available, it did not make sense to have grant aid to enable an increase in fishing effort. The Council regulation governing the EFF specifically states that no EU aid can be granted for the construction of new fishing vessels. However, providing the vessel’s fishing capacity is not increased, support will continue to be available under EFF to modernise vessels, to improve the quality of the catch, to improve working conditions on board, and to ensure the health and safety of the crew. Such modernisation may involve improvements such as engines that are more fuel efficient. Obviously, health and safety and the welfare of fishermen is of great importance to me. As Members know, the Man Overboard scheme was launched in Ardglass before Christmas. We will do all that we can, and I reiterate that the consultation will be opening shortly, and I will welcome Members’ views on how that money can best be spent to improve the lot of our fishing industry. Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mr T Clarke: The Minister suggested earlier that the proposed cuts were draconian — I agree with that. However, would the Minster agree that her Department is draconian, because, unlike other EU states, it lacks measures to financially assist fishermen? Ms Gildernew: I am not sure what more to say about that matter. Yes, a 25% cut in the cod TAC was draconian, but we must consider the big picture. I again remind the House that we maintained an increase in the nephrops TAC, which was gained last year; we turned around a 15% proposed haddock reduction to a 5% increase; we achieved a move from 25% to 18% on cod; we achieved a change from an 8% cut to a rollover on herring; and achieved a similar figure on hake. Although the headlines generally focus on cod, our industry is about so much more than cod, and the rest of the industry is equally important to me as cod. The cuts were draconian and we resisted them as best we could, but we were not the only member state to have cuts imposed on us. All of the member states went to the Council with a shopping list of demands and, having sat through those negotiations, and heard those lists, I can assure Members that ours was substantially longer than all of the others. Mr McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s initiative in meeting other fisheries Ministers ahead of the Brussels Council meeting. Could the Minister provide further detail on the meeting with Minister Mary Coughlan TD? I hope that that meeting entailed a joint strategy aimed at protecting Irish national interests. Ms Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat. I will be seeking opportunities to work on an all-island basis in order to maximise the opportunities for the fishing industry in Ireland, including ours. I regularly meet with Mary Coughlan to discuss issues of common interest in respect of a range of areas in agriculture, and I see our fishing industry in a similar light. We have been particularly successful in securing a co-ordinated approach to our scientific research. Our research vessels work closely together. Although the bulk of the fleet in the South concentrates on the Atlantic coast, obviously we must work together on approaches to fishing in the Irish Sea. We will continue to do all that we can to maximise the opportunities that are available to our fleet. Mr Irwin: The fishing industry will take cold comfort from the Minister’s statement. She said that negotiations continued into the night and that other member states had agreed on their industries’ needs. Is it not, therefore, the case that the Minister was left with the scraps from the table? Ms Gildernew: No, that is not the case. Mr McNarry: What implications does the Minister feel that the 18% reduction in the amount of white fish that can be caught in the Irish Sea will have for the hardship of fishermen, whose livelihoods depend on catching white fish? What comment will she make on the criticism of her negotiating skills in Brussels? That criticism does not support her view, which she has stated in the House today, that she secured the best possible deal — or even a good deal — for the industry. Ms Gildernew: I have been in the job for a long time. Everyone gets criticised — the Member will understand that — therefore I cannot become too fixated on it. I must do my absolute best for the people who look to me for leadership, and that is what I am doing. I reiterate the comments that I made in my statement: vessels that land less than 5% of cod can have 204 days at sea; those that land less than 5% of cod, sole and plaice can have 280 days. Environmental controls and initiatives, such as the Irish Sea data enhancement project, were worked out with the industry on how best to get a fair deal for fishermen. However, it must be remembered that white-fish vessels, depending on the fishing gear that they deploy, now have either 146 days or 174 days at sea. That applies to two vessels. I did not examine the industry and decide that, because prawn fishing is a bigger part of the industry than cod fishing, I should, therefore, work harder for it. I worked hard for the entire industry right up until the last minute of negotiations. That is the approach that I have taken, and it is how I want to ensure the fishing industry’s survival. In 2008, 495 tons of cod will be available. However, by Christmas 2007, white-fish vessels had caught 420 tons of cod. Therefore, in 2008, a higher quota will be available to white-fish vessels than was caught in 2007. That must be considered alongside scientific evidence. We have secured the best possible deal that anyone could have. Mr McKay: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement. What are her objectives and priorities for the fishing industry in 2008? Ms Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat. My priorities for quotas in 2008 are to at least maintain the prawn quota at its current level and to seek a further, sustainable increase in the Irish Sea haddock quota. Achieving that will require a strong scientific case; therefore, it is vital that everyone works together to provide the evidence that is needed. Good participation in initiatives such as the data enhancement project and the provision of as much catch data as possible is absolutely essential. I hope that the industry will work with the Department in order to achieve that. The number of days at sea will depend on the outcome of the European Commission’s review of the cod recovery plan, which will be published later in 2008. My aim is to maintain existing fishing opportunities and, where there is scientific evidence, to push for increased opportunities. Although those are my priorities, I will work closely with the industry in order to ensure that its priorities are reflected in the Department’s negotiations throughout 2008 until the Fisheries Council next meeting in December. 12.45 pm Mr Burnside: There is probably no industry in the United Kingdom and Ireland that has been hurt more than the fishing industry has been hurt by the common fisheries policy. Since Sinn Féin is an anti-European party, will it commit itself to the United Kingdom’s repatriation of its independence on fisheries policy? [Laughter.] A Member: You cannot look at your officials now, Minister. Ms Gildernew: I am not looking at officials; that will tell the tale. It is for the United Kingdom to decide what it wants to do with its fisheries policy. I am interested in the Irish opportunities — in particular, for the fleet that currently fishes out of our fishing villages. If one looks at the ongoing history of fishing policy, one can see that other countries have not had the same burden on fishing opportunities that we have had over the years. Mr Deputy Speaker: Members, that concludes questions to the Minister — Mr Wells: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you ask the Speaker to review the Hansard report of how he dealt with the first question that I asked on this issue? He will note that I asked at least three specific questions in my contribution. Clearly, the Minister was afraid to answer any of those questions, because she feigned not to have heard any questions. The Speaker agreed with her, and she failed to answer any of those questions. There is no sense in having Ministers hiding behind not hearing, or not understanding, the question. Will you please ask the Speaker to review the Hansard report and to rule, as soon as possible, on how that issue was dealt with earlier this morning? Mr Deputy Speaker: I will certainly refer the matter to the Speaker, who was in the Chair at that particular time. Undoubtedly, the Speaker will respond to you in due course. The Working Time (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007 The Minister for Employment and Learning (Sir Reg Empey): I beg to move That the Working Time (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007 (S.R. 2007/340) be approved. I seek the Assembly’s approval for regulations to increase Northern Ireland workers’ minimum annual leave entitlement from four weeks to 5·6 weeks. These regulations are subject to the confirmatory procedure as laid down in the parent legislation, the Work and Families (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. To continue to have effect, they must be approved by resolution of the Assembly within six months of their coming into operation. The regulations were made on 20 July 2007 and came into operation on 1 October 2007. The increase in the statutory minimum entitlement will be phased in. By April 2009, it will equate to an extra eight days. The right to four weeks’ paid annual leave was introduced by the Working Time Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998. Since then, it has been recognised that some workers — particularly those who are low paid — are being required to include time off for bank and public holidays against their four-week annual leave entitlement. To address that matter, proposals were brought forward to increase the statutory minimum entitlement. There are 10 bank and public holidays in Northern Ireland and eight in Great Britain. In 2006, my Department’s first consultation on those proposals sought views on the potential benefits and impacts of the proposed increases, and the treatment of the additional two bank and public holidays in Northern Ireland. In 2007, a second consultation sought views on the draft legislation and on means for providing support and guidance. That consultation contained proposals for an increase of 10 days in Northern Ireland, which attracted criticism from a significant number of respondents, particularly those in the business community and those trading on a UK-wide basis. The lack of robust impact data on the Northern Ireland proposals was another cause of concern. A UK-wide regulatory impact assessment estimated the cost to Great Britain of an additional eight days to be between £3·2 billion and £4·4 billion per annum. That equates to an indicative cost of around £80 million to £110 million for Northern Ireland. Although we were included in the UK research, the sample sizes were too small to produce reliable data here. Also, there was no specific information on the effect of the additional two days on Northern Ireland businesses. In light of the responses to the consultation exercises, and taking into consideration the lack of a robust regulatory impact assessment, I, with Executive agreement, decided to increase the statutory minimum entitlement for Northern Ireland workers by eight days. However, my Department will undertake further research on the impact of increasing the statutory minimum by a further two days and will engage with key stakeholders. Indeed, that process has already commenced. The increase is being implemented in two phases: from 4 weeks to 4·8 weeks from October 2007, and from 4·8 weeks to 5·6 weeks from April 2009. The statutory entitlement will be capped at 28 days. To help businesses adjust to the new requirements — particularly in those areas most affected, such as the retail, care and hospitality sectors — the regulations allow for employers to make payment in lieu of the additional leave entitlement for a transitional period until 1 April 2009. However, from April 2009, workers must take their leave, as continuous “buy-out” arrangements would negate the intent and spirit of the law, which is to allow people a reasonable time away from the workplace. The regulations also permit carry-over to the following leave year of some or all of the additional entitlement, where this is agreed by the employer and the worker, as long as four weeks’ holiday leave is taken in the year. My Department has produced guidance to assist both employers and workers. A dedicated web page has been designed, and an online calculator has been developed to help all those affected to work out their entitlement. The increase in the statutory minimum leave entitlement is good news for an estimated 150,000 workers here, and it will particularly benefit the low paid, part-time workers, women and agency workers. It will help them to strike a better work-life balance and spend more time with family and friends. Good employers recognise that reasonable holiday provision is a key factor in recruiting and retaining staff and keeping them motivated. The increase will enable good employers that already offer 28 days or more to compete on a more level playing field. I am most grateful to the Committee for Employment and Learning for its detailed scrutiny of the policy proposals and the regulations. At its meeting on 26 September 2007, the Committee recommended that they be approved by the Assembly. I beg to move that the regulations be approved. The Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning (Ms S Ramsey): Go raibh maith agat. I rise on behalf of the Committee for Employment and Learning to support the motion, and I call on the Assembly to confirm the regulations. These regulations were on the Committee’s agenda soon after the return of devolution, and we considered them before summer recess last year, and again in September. The Committee was briefed on the regulations by the Department on three occasions, and I take this opportunity to thank the Minister and his officials for their high level of consultation with the Committee on this important piece of subordinate legislation. This was the first statutory rule subject to a confirmatory resolution to be considered by the Committee. The Committee agreed formally to support the confirming of these regulations at its meeting on 26 September 2007. The Minister has already outlined what these regulations will achieve; I will not repeat what he said. However, it is worth reinforcing a couple of key points. This legislation will have a significant and positive impact on those local employees who are paid at a lower rate and who currently have the most disadvantageous terms and conditions. In many instances, those workers have been required to offset time taken for bank and public holidays against their annual leave entitlement. As the draft Budget and draft Programme for Government puts the future of the local economy under extensive scrutiny, it is vital that leave entitlement is considered and improved. People deserve and require appropriate leave arrangements, which should be seen as an integral part of a mature economy in which workers are afforded time to rest, refresh and spend time with their families and friends. The regulations also recognise business needs by providing for “buy-out” — payment in lieu of the additional entitlement — in the transitional years 2007-08 and 2008-09. That should help employers to implement the new arrangements. However, it is important and appropriate that “buy-out” will not be permitted in future years. Were that permitted, there would always be a temptation to offer that option to employees, which would serve only to defeat the purpose of these important regulations. I thank the Minister for giving the House an up-to-date briefing on the matter. I support the motion. Go raibh maith agat. Mr B McCrea: This is good news for approximately 150,000 workers in Northern Ireland. The Minister has spoken with commendable clarity on the detail of his proposals. I have no intention of regurgitating them, but some supporting points are worth making. It sounds almost too good to be true that people’s holidays are going to be increased by eight days. It is something of a shock to many people that many employers were tempted to include statutory holidays in their employees’ holiday entitlement. This proposal is an attempt to level the playing field, not only for the workers, but for those employers that already give excellent holiday benefits. It is worth pointing out that both the Labour Party in its 2005 manifesto, and Peter Hain, in a January 2007 announcement, said that something had to be done to bring Northern Ireland up to the same level as the rest of the United Kingdom. The proposals that have been put forward differ slightly from that point of view, in that the Minister suggests increasing the number of holidays by eight, and not by 10 days. There are reasons for that, and I am gratified to hear that the Minister plans to keep the matter under review, in order to assess the impact of the extra two days. It was interesting that, during consultation, industry representatives pointed out some of the real practical difficulties posed by the two additional days that Northern Ireland enjoys as bank holidays, particularly for those companies that employ people on both sides of the Irish Sea, or for those that provide a mixed service. We must sort those issues out. There would be costs, such as for computer systems, if that arrangement were put in place. Nevertheless, the Minister has pledged to keep the matter under review. I am sure, as he has said, that he will keep in mind the importance of ensuring that Northern Ireland remains competitive at all levels. It is important to ensure that our workers receive the holidays that they are entitled to, but we must keep an eye to our international competitiveness. With that in mind, and in comparison with other countries, it is worth stating that the Republic of Ireland will have 29 holidays, while Austria tops the league with 38 holidays, so there is still some room for manoeuvre, if that is what comes out. I commend the Minister for the manner in which he proposed the motion and congratulate him for the excellent consultation and listening process that he brought to the entire exercise. 1.00 pm Mr Attwood: I apologise for not being in the House to hear the Minister’s statement, but I was speaking at another meeting on the Stormont estate. In one short statement, the Minister has arguably done as much to improve the lot of the working person in the North as any other Minister since the Assembly was set up. Measured against that standard, the Minister can be congratulated on a good day’s work. I welcome what he has said today, and I welcome the briefings that were provided to the Committee for Employment and Learning. The announcement is timely, given that, tomorrow, Mr McLaughlin from Sinn Féin will introduce a motion on the pay, conditions and entitlements of agency workers. I am sure that that motion will get broad endorsement in the House, and I have no doubt that the Minister will reply to that tomorrow. It is timely to note the contrast between the lot of the agency worker and that of the permanent worker. Today’s announcement creates better conditions of employment for so many people in the North, when leave entitlement is considered. I endorse Mr McCrea’s comments. This matter must be kept under review and monitored. A small body of employers in the North will feel that greater leave entitlements are more of a threat than an opportunity. The small number of employers who may be somewhat hostile to this proposal must be monitored as best as possible and the Department must have a reporting framework to ensure that, especially over the next two years and in the early years thereafter, the new leave entitlement is claimed, and entitled to be claimed, by all. Finally, I endorse the comments of the Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning. She said that the test of the proposal is that the leave entitlement is improved. Over the next two years that standard of leave entitlement being approved must be reached. Employers who, without just cause or for some irregular reason, do not endorse this leave entitlement must be appropriately called to account. Mr Spratt: I also endorse the comments made by the Chairperson of the Committee. I thank the Minister and the Department for the wide consultation that has taken place — including with the Committee, as the Chairperson said. On behalf of the DUP side of the House, I endorse everything that has been said in the debate. The Minister’s announcement is good news for 150,000 employees in Northern Ireland. The increase in holiday entitlement and the protections afforded will help some of the most vulnerable people, including agency workers. From that perspective, the DUP fully supports what has been said. I welcome the Minister’s assurance that he will keep the whole process under continual review to ensure that it is properly implemented across the entire Province. I fully support the motion. Sir Reg Empey: I am grateful to the Members who have contributed. Before the debate is closed, I have a couple of points of clarification in case there is any confusion. Although bank holidays will be included in the entitlement of 28 days, there never was and there will not be any requirement for people to take their leave on the days that are bank holidays. That was one anxiety that people who work in the retail trade and in the caring professions expressed. However, there is no such requirement, because the employee and employer will decide between themselves when holidays are to be taken. There is no imposition on employers or workers to take holidays on particular days. Annual leave entitlement, incorporating statutory holidays, simply increases to 28 days. Basil McCrea talked about the impact of the extra two days’ holidays. The review process has already commenced, and my Department is in discussion with stakeholders. The statistical data and impact assessment for the UK as a whole were insufficiently detailed for Northern Ireland purposes, because the sample from which the data were taken was too small. The review will probably conclude by the autumn, after which my officials and I will be in a position to discuss its outworkings with the Committee. We realise that there are complications, but we were not satisfied that the information at our disposal was sufficiently robust to allow us to make an informed decision. Therefore, a determination will probably be made towards the end of this year. Mr Attwood rightly said that this is a good day for many workers. Members will debate working conditions for agency workers tomorrow. However, significant numbers of people work in sectors in which their holiday entitlements have been far less than those who work for many good employers, including those in the public sector. For example, everyone who works in this Building, including Members, benefits from a holiday entitlement of at least 28 days. By ensuring that there is a level playing field, many people are given new opportunities, particularly women who work while also coping with raising families. We were cautious about including the choice to opt out in the legislation, because it could have been exploited and abused. However, as the Chairperson of the Committee has said, there is a transition period in order to allow employers time to adjust. People must understand that the legislation’s objective is to allow people to spend more time away from the workplace. Members have mentioned that we live in a competitive society and that our economy is under pressure. However, had we thought that regulations to reduce the amount of time that people have off work would make the economy more competitive, the Assembly would be having a different debate today. I welcome the comments of the Committee’s Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson. My Department tried to work with the Committee as a team on the regulations, because everyone in society must have cognisance of the issue. All Members are lobbied and pressured by various groups, and sometimes it is hard to stand back and make an objective decision. I think that we have managed to do that as far as was possible, and we have ensured that there has been as much of a consensus as was achievable. I understand that no one wants to increase the burden on any business, but a work-life balance must be struck. Many people who become stressed end up taking time off sick. My Department is trying to deal with the problem of excessive sick absence, not least in the Civil Service, but improvements will not be achieved by giving people fewer holidays. I have tried to respond to most of the points that Members have made. I thank Members for their contributions and the Committee for its co-operation. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That the Working Time (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007 (S.R. 2007/340) be approved. Legislative Consent Motion The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey): I beg to move That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of provisions of the Health and Social Care Bill dealing with the entering into of arrangements with the Care Quality Commission; regulation of health professions; the health in pregnancy grant (including provision for making such grant an excepted matter under the Northern Ireland Act 1998); and the abolition of the National Biological Standards Board. The Health and Social Care Bill was introduced in Westminster on 15 November 2007 and deals with a number of issues arising from the White Paper ‘Trust, Assurance and Safety — The Regulation of Health Professionals in the 21st Century’. I could have brought the legislation forward as an Assembly Bill, but I did not wish to miss the opportunity of having the legislation available at the earliest possible date. The first key provision that the Bill proposes is the abolition of the National Biological Standards Board, which provides independent testing of medicines for the UK market, such as vaccines for the children’s vaccination programme. In the last decade, Northern Ireland has not been significantly involved in the working of the body, but we contribute towards its funding by over £250,000 per annum. The functions will be transferred to the Health Protection Agency, which has a presence in Northern Ireland. It employs staff at the communicable disease surveillance centre, which is based at Belfast City Hospital and directed and funded by my Department. The Bill will also legislate on a variety of regulatory issues affecting healthcare professionals in Northern Ireland. Those will include the appointment of an independent adjudicator to hear fitness-to-practice cases involving healthcare professionals; the amendment of the Health Act 1999 to provide for a majority of lay members on healthcare regulatory bodies; the adoption by healthcare regulatory bodies of the civil standard of proof in determining allegations of lack of fitness to practice; and the appointment by healthcare organisations of a responsible officer whose role will be to safeguard patients by identifying and handling issues of poor performance by doctors, liaising with the General Medical Council on possible fitness-to-practice cases, and making recommendations on the re-licensing of doctors. The Bill also proposes to amend the constitution and functions of the Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals, a UK body that promotes best practice in the regulation of healthcare professionals. With regard to pharmacy, in Great Britain, it has been decided to separate the regulatory and professional leadership function in favour of a general pharmaceutical council for regulation and a college-like body for professional leadership. The Bill enables appropriate legislation to include Northern Ireland in the establishment of such a council. Although that would harmonise arrangements, not only across the profession but with other health professions that are already regulated on a UK-wide basis, I have not reached a decision yet on whether to adopt that approach. The Bill will also establish for England a new single integrated independent health and adult social care body to be known as the care quality commission. There are proposals in the Bill for powers to enable Northern Ireland Ministers to enter into arrangements with the new single body. 1.15 pm An equivalent body already exists in Northern Ireland — the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA), which was established in 2005. It is likely that our mutual regulation bodies will, occasionally, need to share advice or expertise, which is allowed for in the provision. With the agreement of my Executive colleague, the Minister for Social Development, Margaret Ritchie, the Bill allows for the introduction of a health-in-pregnancy grant, which is a single, one-off, payment of £190 to every expectant mother from the 25th week of pregnancy. The aim of the grant is to contribute towards an improved lifestyle and healthy diet during the final weeks of pregnancy. The grant will be introduced in April 2009. The introduction of the legislation will help to provide safer and streamlined services to the public. High quality, responsive and safe health services are what the public demand and deserve. I ask the House to support the motion. The Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mrs I Robinson): As the Motion indicates, the Health and Social Care Bill, which is being debated in Westminster, contains four main provisions that relate to Northern Ireland and require the approval of the Assembly: the power to enter into arrangements with the care quality commission; provisions relating to the regulation of health professionals; proposals for the introduction of a new health-in-pregnancy grant; and the abolition of the National Biological Standards Board. In October, officials from the Department came to the Committee to explain the relevant provisions of the Bill. They explained that, at that stage, the Bill had not been laid before Parliament and was, therefore, still a draft Bill and subject to change. The Committee is grateful to the officials who visited the Committee again last Thursday to brief members in more detail. The main issue of interest — and of concern — to the Health Committee, and which has the potential to bring about the greatest change, is the regulation of healthcare professionals, with particular implications for Northern Ireland’s pharmaceutical profession. The Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland, which is the main organisation that is likely to be directly affected by the proposal, has made representations to the Committee. The proposals on the regulation of healthcare professionals were set out in the White Paper ‘Trust, assurance and safety: the regulation of health professionals’, which was published in February 2007. In drawing up those proposals, the Government identified a potential problem relating to pharmacy: the pharmaceutical profession is regulated by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland, which are separate. Unlike regulating bodies for the medical, nursing and allied health professions, those bodies have a regulatory function and a professional leadership function. The White Paper put forward the view that those functions should be separated, and that the provisions in the Bill would replace the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain with a general pharmaceutical council, which would deal with regulation, and a college-type body to deal with professional leadership. As the Minister explained, the new general pharmaceutical council will not automatically take over the regulatory function of the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland. However, the provision in the Bill will give the Minister the power to hand over that function, should he so decide. The Committee fully understands that it could be difficult to defend the perceived conflict of interest for a single body that exists to uphold the public interest, but that has a self interest. That argument has led to the view that those two functions should be separated, as they are for professions such as nursing and medicine. However, it must be recognised that, for the past 80 years, pharmacists in Northern Ireland have been successfully regulated, and professionally represented, by the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland. There is a strong case for asking why the system needs to be fixed if it is not broken. Furthermore, the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland has argued to the Committee that if the proposal is enacted in Northern Ireland, there is a distinct possibility that it would not be able to continue with its representative role, meaning that the local professional voice of pharmacy could be lost. The Minister has advised the society that he is strongly minded to adopt the approach of having a single regulatory body — the general pharmaceutical council — that will cover the profession throughout the United Kingdom. However, he has assured the Committee that he has not reached a final decision on that, and he has also given an assurance that he will return to the Committee with his proposals. On that basis, the Committee is content to support the inclusion of an enabling provision in the Health and Social Care Bill. The Bill also proposes the introduction of a health-in-pregnancy grant. Although the administration of that grant will be a matter for the Department for Social Development, its aim and purpose is a health matter. The grant will help pregnant women to meet the additional nutritional — and other — costs of maintaining a healthy lifestyle during pregnancy. I particularly welcome the requirement on pregnant women to seek health advice from a relevant professional in order that they may qualify for the grant. I hope that that will result in women receiving one-to-one tailored advice and support on their dietary and nutritional needs at such an important time in their lives. I support the motion. Ms Ní Chuilín: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion and many of the sentiments that were outlined by the Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety. It is imperative that the Minister returns to the Health Committee and listens to what it has to say. He must also listen to the Pharmaceutical Society before he makes his decision, given that legislative consent for the Bill will have greater implications for that body than it will for any other. The health-in-pregnancy grant will have a direct impact on the health of expectant mothers and their ability to concentrate on their aftercare, and I welcome that. There is an equality-impact issue in relation to the payments made to mothers-to-be, regardless of how many babies they are carrying, so I would like a caveat added, if possible. There is evidence that women who have multiple pregnancies are under more physical stress than those with fewer pregnancies. Indeed, such stress has a big impact on them. The entitlement for pregnant women to contact health professionals and to avail themselves of their advice is also welcome. I am not suggesting that that entitlement is a form of buying in medical advice that should exist at the point of service, but pregnant women will benefit from such services as reflexology, aromatherapy and other forms of medical intervention that are required throughout pregnancy. I would appreciate it if the legislation could be introduced here before April 2009. Like the Chairperson of the Health Committee, I look forward to the Health Minister returning to the Committee before making his decision regarding the Pharmaceutical Society. Go raibh maith agat. Mr McCallister: Although most of the points have been covered, we broadly support the legislation, particularly the health-in-pregnancy grant, which the Chairperson of the Health Committee and Carál Ní Chuilín mentioned. Will the Minister support the idea of keeping in Northern Ireland the registration of the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland? Will he also work closely with the society in drawing up new proposals and in bringing them to the Health Committee and the Assembly? Perhaps he will respond to those questions in his closing remarks. Those proposals would go a long way in finding a solution to the difficulties and issues that have been raised in the Committee and in the House. Mr Gallagher: As a member of the Health Committee, I support the provisions of the Bill. I share the concerns that have been raised about health professionals, particularly the Pharmaceutical Society, and the possible implications that the Bill’s provisions will have for its future role, not least in its registration and regulatory functions. Northern Ireland is now taking responsibility for its own affairs through the Assembly, and, in many cases, there are special circumstances that must be recognised. I represent a border constituency, and sometimes the needs of those who live in border areas lead to peculiar circumstances, which very often the Government at Westminster do not recognise. Therefore, it is important that, in order to reflect local needs and the peculiarities that sometimes face us in Northern Ireland, we receive an assurance that the local voice of the Pharmaceutical Society will be heard. As the Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety stressed, it is important that the Minister assures us that, before any further decisions are taken, professionals, the Committee and the British Medical Association (BMA), all of which still have some concerns about the Bill’s provisions, will be consulted. Mr Buchanan: As a member of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, I support the motion, while reiterating the concerns that my fellow Committee members have highlighted. I have some questions to put to the Minister for him to answer in his closing remarks. I recognise that the regulation of doctors and other healthcare staff in Northern Ireland should be the same as in Great Britain, because we cannot get into a situation in which doctors are under any greater or lesser obligation than their colleagues in hospitals across the water. However, although I have no intention of opposing the position that the Committee has adopted, the BMA has raised some legitimate concerns that require clarification. Can the Minister tell the House the likely impact of a change from use of the present criminal standard to the civil standard of proof in fitness to practise cases, which is outlined in clause 104? We do not want to have doctors who are afraid to take decisions. Everyone knows that it is almost impossible to get doctors in the United States to specialise in, for example, obstetrics or anaesthetics, because of the high levels of patient litigation. I call on the Minister to inform the Assembly of how we can be assured that defensive medicine will not occur in Northern Ireland. Moreover, what input will our elected representatives have in the legislative process across the water? The Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development (Mr Campbell): The Health and Social Care Bill includes a grant that will provide financial support to expectant mothers to help them to meet the higher costs, including dietary and other additional costs, of living a healthy lifestyle during their pregnancy. The Committee welcomes the introduction of the grant that will be awarded to every mother-to-be from week 29 of her pregnancy, particularly the fact that it will be paid regardless of income. However, entitlement to the grant does require pregnant women to seek health advice from a health professional. That will surely be of benefit to the mother, as it will not only provide a financial incentive to seek health advice at the right time but will provide an excellent opportunity to inform expectant mothers of the importance of good nutrition during pregnancy. The health-in-pregnancy grant will take the form of a one-off payment of £190 to expectant mothers for every pregnancy, regardless of whether a single birth or multiple births are expected. When the Committee was considering the proposed introduction of the grant, it considered information received from the Twins and Multiple Births Association (Tamba). It believes that the grant should be paid for each expectant child, rather than for each pregnancy. Research has shown that compared to single pregnancies, multiple-birth pregnancies have additional nutritional requirements and that consequently there are additional costs in achieving healthy weight gain. 1.30 pm Research has also shown that expectant multiple-birth mothers not only need to gain more weight than expectant single mothers, they also need to gain weight at an earlier stage. Due to the increased risk of premature birth, more weight needs to be gained in the first trimester; therefore, not surprisingly, TAMBA raised some concern about the timing of the payment of the grant for multiple-birth pregnancies. It believes that the optimal time for any intervention is in the very early stages of pregnancy. In conclusion, the Committee for Social Development supports the extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Health and Social Care Bill that deal with the health and pregnancy grant but wishes to highlight the concerns raised by TAMBA in relation to the needs of expectant multiple-birth mothers. It is hoped that that will be considered both by the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety and by the Minister. Mr Easton: I support the motion. Time does not permit me to deal comprehensively with all material concerns. Nonetheless, I wish to draw attention to several specific areas, particularly the welcome area of the pregnancy grant, which is aimed at promoting health in the latter stages of pregnancy, and the sensitive area of the integrity of the responsibilities of the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland. It is essential that the promotion of health for women in the latter stages of pregnancy is not open to abuse, as the priority must be that expectant mothers can receive the benefit during the time when rising costs can impact on healthy living, and particularly on diet and nutrition. I commend the fact that the financial incentive is linked to receiving advice from a suitable, qualified health professional but I will be seeking reassurances from the Minister that the financial incentive can be appropriately ring-fenced for the purpose for which it is being designed. The pharmaceutical industry is ever-developing, and it is imperative that we have local, effective regulation. Will the Minister assure us that the needs of the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland are treated with the appropriate degree of sensitivity and that further development in the area will be communicated to the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety? Mr McGimpsey: Several valuable points have been made, and I will attempt to respond to them. The first point relates to the grant of £190 which is payable at the twenty-fifth week of pregnancy and which aims to encourage a healthy lifestyle and diet. It does not infringe on other rights of mothers; for example, Sure Start, maternity grant, healthy start schemes or other state support. As Gregory Campbell said, it is not means tested and it is applicable to everyone. Tom Buchannan referred to doctors. It is true that the civil standard of proof rather than the criminal standard of proof is applicable. The General Medical Council has already moved to that form of proof in so far as the criminal standard of proof requires people to be wholly convinced. The civil standard of proof is more appropriate. The standard adopted should be appropriate to ensure patient safety and public confidence in the system. The stimulus for those measures was the Shipman Inquiry. Shipman was a GP, and it is estimated that he murdered around 300 of his patients. There were instances that would have pointed to his criminal activity had they been appreciated. Proof needs to be collected, and in Shipman’s case evidence was available but was not recognised, seized or acted on. Had they been, a large number of lives would have been saved. That is another reason why the standard of proof that is required in civil law is regarded as the appropriate way forward, rather than that required in criminal law, whereby facts must be wholly proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Tommy Gallagher, John McCallister and Alex Easton each properly pointed out that pharmacies must act as local voices for local needs, and I strongly support that. Local pharmacies must belong to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, but that does not preclude local leadership or representation. The Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland is concerned about those matters, and, for that reason, I have informed it that, although I will be empowered to by the proposed legislation, I will not proceed without having held discussions with the society about how to alleviate those concerns. I am also committed to discussions with the Royal Pharmaceutical of Great Britain in order to help to establish the proposed general pharmaceutical council, while ensuring that we retain a local voice and leadership. I will work on that and, in due course, report back to the Health Committee. Alex Easton mentioned ring-fencing in respect of the health-in-pregnancy grant. It is difficult to envisage how that grant could be ring-fenced. When a grant is paid for a specific purpose, it is assumed that people are responsible for how they spend such money, and a £190 one-off grant, or anything like it, will by no means address the cost of a pregnancy. I believe that that is accepted. Such a grant is intended to encourage a healthy diet and lifestyle, which will have a positive impact on a baby — particularly as he or she grows up. Those are the reasons for the grant, and it is difficult to envisage how ring-fencing could be enforced, other than by providing advice. Mrs Robinson also mentioned the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland’s representations to the Committee and, as I said, I will return to the Committee on that point after I have spoken to the society. I believe that I have covered the points that Members have raised, and I shall finish by asking for the support of the House. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of provisions of the Health and Social Care Bill dealing with the entering into of arrangements with the Care Quality Commission; regulation of health professions; the health in pregnancy grant (including provision for making such grant an excepted matter under the Northern Ireland Act 1998); and the abolition of the National Biological Standards Board. All-Party Assembly Group on Children and Young People Mr Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Mr Beggs: I beg to move That this Assembly notes the work of Professor Heckman and Mark Greenberg on government investment with young children; urges the Executive to take note of the outcomes from this work, and to invest in early intervention and prevention; and calls on the Executive to protect, maintain and further develop the investment that has been made in children and young people, through Executive Programme Funds, the Children and Young People’s Priority Funding Package, and the Supporting Families Package. I declare an interest as a voluntary committee member of Horizon Sure Start in Carrickfergus and Larne, which was established in order to assist children. The All-Party Assembly Group on Children and Young People has been re-established, and meets at lunchtime on the first Tuesday of each month. We would welcome any other Members who might care to join us on that group in order that they might be better informed on children’s issues. I am pleased that the motion has been proposed during this critical Budget period, and I hope that Ministers are listening and that children’s needs will be addressed by alterations to the draft Budget. The previous devolved Assembly established the Executive programme fund for children to assist, in particular, with individual Departments that might not have prioritised children’s issues because they were cross-cutting in nature. In reply to a question for oral answer on 5 November 2007, the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety advised that: “The proposal under the draft Budget is that from March 2008, the children’s fund will disappear. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will therefore have to absorb that funding itself at a cost of £5·9 million per annum. In the present harsh financial climate” — where a 3% saving must be made every year — “the offer for my Department under the draft Budget is £3·8 million for year one, £2 million for year two and £2·1 million for year three.” — [Official Report, Bound Volume 25, p25, col 1.] That would result in a reduction by two thirds of the resources under that fund, and it would have a substantial effect on services that have been helping some of the most vulnerable children, young people and families in Northern Ireland. For example, Barnardo’s has advised me that it would mean the loss of 11 services that operate in eight different constituencies. Those services are working to help children with disabilities, children who have experienced domestic violence and children who are at risk of being taken into care or custody. This cut would also affect the support that Barnardo’s is giving to young parents and to parents whose children display behavioural difficulties. To date, Barnardo’s has helped 2,500 children and young people and over 600 parents. A second stream of funding that is currently at risk is the children and young people funding package. In March 2006, the then Secretary of State, Peter Hain, announced that new package of £61·7 million over two years. The document which outlined the details of that package at the time stated that: “this will be included in baselines of relevant participating Departments.” That funding will come to an end in a little over two months, and there is still uncertainty about the long-term funding of various programmes that have been helped to date. I believe that the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister has promised some £26 million, but, if that is over one year, it will represent a reduction. However, there is a lack of clarity, and the groups on the ground have yet to be told their future. The types of activities that have been assisted have been extended schools, extended early-years provision, looked-after children and vulnerable young adults, youth outreach initiatives, child protection, and children with special needs and disabilities. This comes on the back of a damning report by the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY), published in May 2007, which exposed the lack of public expenditure on children in Northern Ireland. That research was funded by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Department of Finance and Personnel. The report indicated that personal social services funding per capita was £287 per child in Northern Ireland, £402 in England, £513 in Scotland and £429 in Wales. Children’s services in Northern Ireland are underfunded by at least 30%. The former Homefirst Community Health and Social Services Trust area, which covers my constituency, had the lowest funding per capita of any part of Northern Ireland, with only £216 per child. As a public representative, I saw the outcome of that. There were excessive waiting times for special needs assessments, speech and language support and mental-health support. Children who were in need of support were let down. As Members will be aware, early intervention is critical in many cases. Soon after the re-establishment of the all-party group, we picked up concern from the children’s sector about funding and the implications of the draft Budget. Children’s and parent’s hopes are often built up, only to face uncertainty or be dashed due to the stop-start nature of the funding arrangements. We must accept that we need long-term investment in children and young people. Therefore, we must commit to resourcing a robust action plan to deliver the 10-year children’s strategy. The resources for that are not apparent in the draft Programme for Government and the draft Budget. In my experience, the voluntary sector can often reach those in need when the statutory sector somehow fails to reach them. Therefore, I suggest that there is an ongoing need for the children’s voluntary and community sector to be a key partner in that work. 1.45 pm It is important to appreciate the type of services that are at risk if funding is not granted. Today, I attended a Home-Start press launch in the Long Gallery; the junior Ministers will also attend that event. Some of Home-Start’s projects are at risk. Will funding be available to ensure that volunteers are co-ordinated in order to help families that are at risk? If that does not happen, it is likely that more children will go into care, resulting in poor outcomes. I urge the Executive to ensure that vulnerable families are not put at increased risk. PlayBoard has administered the extended schools projects and supported children in breakfast clubs and after-school groups. Those after-school groups, by assisting children with homework, can improve educational outcomes and enable parents to take up employment. Both those factors can have a significant effect in the reduction of child poverty. When a parent is working, household incomes are boosted and children have a positive role model, which, in addition to the support that they are getting with their homework, also encourages them. I am aware of waiting lists for affordable childcare in my own constituency. If the full cost of childcare had to be met by parents, some of them may be better off on benefits. If such people did go onto benefits, how would anti-poverty targets and employment targets that have been set out in the draft Programme for Government be met? The NCH, formerly known as the National Children’s Home, has indicated that funding is uncertain for some of its services, including those that have been acknowledged as successfully assisting vulnerable children. Include Youth, which works with young people who are at risk of offending, also indicates an uncertain future. The all-party group has met the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to press for funding, as well as junior Ministers Ian Paisley Jnr and Gerry Kelly. The role of Northern Ireland’s Minister for Children was established under direct rule. The Minister’s main role was to be to co-ordinate ministerial subcommittee meetings on children’s issues, including cross-cutting issues. When the all-party group met the junior Ministers, it learned that, after seven months of devolution, a ministerial subcommittee meeting to address those issues has not been held. The group urges the junior Ministers to meet the relevant Ministers before the consultation period for the Budget is finished so that relevant issues can be addressed. I hope that the Minister of Education, who is present today, will be able to advise Members whether that has happened. It certainly should have happened. If it has not, there is a danger of children’s issues going by default. Professor James Heckman of the University of Chicago, who also assists at University College Dublin, is a Nobel laureate in economic sciences. We are fortunate that he is working in Northern Ireland and assisting Early Years, which was formerly known as NIPPA (Northern Ireland Pre-School Playgroup Association). His research has shown the benefits of investing in the skills of children in their early years. Investment in human capital is likely to be more effective and to produce more favourable outcomes in the long run if it is targeted at children and young people. Mark Greenberg is an American economist who also works in this area. He has indicated that it is important that guaranteed childcare assistance to low-income families should be available to promote early-years educational opportunities for all. The draft Budget is supposedly aimed at the future economic growth of Northern Ireland. However, it does not maintain previously committed expenditure for children. I urge Members to support the motion and to ensure that we invest in young people. Miss Mcllveen: An essential aspect of investing in young children is through education. That is an area in which I have a particular interest. In the Executive’s draft Programme for Government, the Department of Education, as well as the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, aims to: “Provide for effective early intervention through more coherent education and care provision for pre school children.” The Department intends to that by ensuring that: “a solid framework is in place to support the development of resilient children who are skilled communicators and competent learners prepared for life at school and beyond.” The Department of Education, along with the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure further aims to reduce the gap in educational outcomes by addressing the needs of disadvantaged and vulnerable children and young people by, among other things, implementation of the literacy and numeracy strategy, the school improvement policy, and improved access to the Youth Service for young people most at risk of exclusion. However, there is no reference to maintaining or furthering the already-established elements of the children and young people funding package, which contributes to reducing gaps in the educational needs of disadvantaged and vulnerable young people. What does the Minister of Education propose to do regarding extended schools provision? That is an initiative to assist schools that wish to extend the use of school facilities in order to benefit the community more widely, for example, by providing support for after-school provision, pre-school childcare, creative learning centres, adult learning and other community needs. Schools can provide any facilities or services whose provision furthers any charitable purpose for the benefit of pupils, their families or people who live or work in the area. Furthermore, what does the Minister of Education propose to do about extended early-years provision? There are now 25 Sure Start programmes across Northern Ireland, where Sure Start represents an investment of £9·3 million for 2006-07. That means that over 22,000 children under the age of four and their families have access to services provided through that programme. In England, the Sure Start scheme guarantees all three- and four-year-olds a free, part-time — that is, 12·5 hours per week — early education place and there are over 37,000 settings delivering free, Government-funded, early education. No mention is made of a similar expansion of the Northern Ireland Sure Start programme. In England, through Sure Start, it has been promised that: “There will be a childcare place for all children aged between 3 and 14, between the hours of 8am to 6pm each weekday by 2010, when there will be over 2 million sustainable childcare places for children up to the age of 14.” We have no equivalent to that promise in the Programme for Government. There is no mention of a planned-development programme for two-year-olds. It seems incredible that a literacy and numeracy strategy has been mentioned, but that there is a disregard for Professor Heckman’s research in early-years learning, which an extension of what Sure Start would offer. What does the Minister propose to do about improving education support and provision for children and vulnerable adults? Again, that is not mentioned in the Programme for Government. Such support could provide invaluable assistance for those children who feel detached from society by virtue of being placed in residential care and assisting foster parents in the role of first educators. What does the Minister propose to do about children with special needs and disabilities? Increasing numbers of children whose first language is not English are coming to live in Northern Ireland. Core documents need to be translated so that those children do not miss out on their education. Additional child and youth respite places are needed as well as social and life-skills training for young people aged over 14 with statements of special educational needs. In the latest monitoring round the Minister of Education has handed back £5 million for revenue and £28 million for capital. She is wasting millions of pounds on under-attended Irish-medium schools. Ministers are given a huge responsibility and, arguably, the Minister of Education has been given the biggest of them all: the education of our children, our most valued asset. We require value for money. Investment in early-years learning gives us that. Focus is needed. I feel that young children, vulnerable children and those with special needs have not been well-served by what is contained in the Programme for Government. I ask the Education Minister to clarify her position in relation to the current initiatives funded by the children and young people’s package. The current funding structure is about to end. Those employed under the schemes, and those benefiting from them, have a right to know what will happen. These initiatives are crucial: if adequately resourced and properly implemented in a sustained and well-planned manner, they can make a significant contribution to reducing the gap in educational outcomes, which, after all, is a key objective of the literacy and numeracy strategy. As Professor Heckman states: “Early learning begets later learning and early success breeds later success...” Ms S Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat. As a member of the All-Party Assembly Group on Children and Young People, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the motion which has been proposed by all of the parties’ spokespersons on children’s matters. That, in itself, is an issue. I take a slightly different, though complementary, angle to the previous speakers. As a signatory to the motion, I agree with it totally, and I remind Members that it calls on the Executive to: “invest in early intervention and prevention; and calls on the Executive to protect, maintain and further develop the investment that has been made in children and young people, through Executive Programme Funds, the Children and Young People’s Priority Funding Package and the Supporting Families Package”. I will mention the supporting families package; however, it is naive that we, as spokespersons for our respective parties and for children, should criticise any investment in children and young people. As a group, we should not go down the path of saying that money should be taken away from one thing and allocated to another; we should be calling for additional investment. At a time when there are great pressures on public finances and a need for innovative thinking, no issue is more important than investing in parenting — political investment, as regards leadership; policy investment, as regards strategy; and financial investment, as regards service. I regret that I am unable to say that there is a coherent strategy on parenting; regrettably, there is not. While valuable work has been carried out by various Ministers, Departments and officials, we have yet to see a clear road map and way forward. Following the change to the law on physical punishment in 2005, Jeff Rooker, the then Minister of State for Children, Young People and Families, established a working group on positive parenting to take forward positive parenting and raise awareness of the change in the law. A number of very useful publications have followed, including ‘Top Tips for Parenting Toddlers’ and ‘Top Tips for Parenting Teenagers’. The group has carried out valuable awareness-raising among health and social care professionals, parents and the wider legal profession and in education. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety published its ‘Families Matter’ strategy last year, and we have seen other helpful publications from the Department, such as ‘The Safe Parenting Handbook’. As a strategy, ‘Families Matter’ provides a useful start as it makes a range of suggestions regarding policy and service development. In their responses to the consultation document, many children’s organisations made further suggestions regarding investment in parenting, particularly the availability of parenting programmes. The Department of Education is also developing a strategy for children aged nought to six, which will contain elements of parenting and parenting support through early-years settings, extended school development and the curriculum. We must bring those parenting initiatives together and have a clear, agreed focus, which brings me back to my earlier point concerning the Executive and the need for a joined-up approach on issues relating to children and young people. Many ideas could be progressed in a joined-up way across Government that would maximise the use of resources and ensure better outcomes for parents. I thank the Minister of Education for attending today and for responding to the debate on behalf of the Executive. I take this opportunity to ask her for an assurance that there will be an investment in parenting and a clear joined-up approach to the various elements that I have described. I ask her how the strategies of the Departments of Education and Health and the work of the group led by the Department of Finance and Personnel will be taken forward. In conclusion, and following the comments of the Chairperson of the All-Party Assembly Group on Children and Young People, I urge the Executive and the Minister of Finance and Personnel to review the Budget and send out a clear message that the Assembly cares about children and will invest in them and in our future. Go raibh maith agat. Mrs M Bradley: There are more people with learning disabilities in Northern Ireland than in any other region of these islands. We are all living longer, and that is one of the reasons why our children need to be properly cared for and educated, especially those with a learning difficulty or a disability of any ilk. As a member of the All-Party Assembly Group on Children and Young People, I am very concerned about the draft Programme for Government and associated budgets. I am even more concerned about the financial uncertainty that is hovering over the future of budgets associated with spending on children’s services. Many families, on discovering that a child has learning difficulties, face a daily struggle in deciding the most suitable path for securing a stable and effective future for their child. Members, no doubt, are familiar with the work and ideas of Professor Heckman, which are based on good, safe common sense. However, in the draft Budget, there is by no means even a glimmer of hope that the proper financial resources will be provided to allow delivery of the Programme for Government’s objectives. The uncertainty is palpable in every Department. The watchwords of fairness, inclusion and equality of opportunity, which we have been told will govern every strand in every Department, encourage great expectations. However, meetings that the group has held with various Ministers give no such hope for even a small percentage of that delivery of promise. 2.00 pm Many issues need to be addressed in making provision for children with special needs, not least the severe lack of speech and language therapy, which prevails in all our constituencies. The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People has recommended that the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister should place an emphasis on this issue in order to begin, at least, to address this huge problem. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s announcement in June 2007 that he intends to reduce the waiting list times for speech and language therapy was extremely welcome. His confirmation that children will be at the centre of his programming went some way to dispel the belief that, in all Departments, children had all but been forgotten in the draft Budget. Autism is also an extremely prevalent disability, and Northern Ireland has many sufferers — one in every 100 — and the figure is rising every year. The issue of respite care in general must be addressed, and the provision of respite care for the families of children and young people who suffer from disorders that have symptomatic portrayals of disruptive behaviour and/or violent outbursts should be an inescapable budgetary priority. At present, the entire process of statementing is a minefield for parents and teachers. Each time a child is bullied by other students and frowned on, he or she is dealt a metaphorical blow. Early intervention is essential if we are to learn from Professor Heckman’s theories. If Members read the report, I am sure that they will agree that it makes good sense. Professor Heckman’s theories represent the right road to go down. The provision of appropriate class support, the delivery of after-schools activities and the appropriate diagnostic procedures are essential, basic needs that should — and must — be delivered through the Programme for Government. However, when members of the group approached the Minister of Finance and Personnel, they were told that they had to approach Ministers, who had already been allocated their departmental budgets. That shocked me, and, regrettably, I have to say that, on the part of the Minister of Finance and Personnel, there was an unwillingness to discuss the possibility of ring-fencing the Barnett consequential, as I suggested, in order to provide for children with special needs. Today, I ask the Minister of Finance and Personnel to review that situation. The value of the Barnett consequential — £11·3 million — should be ring-fenced for disabled children’s services, and it is the collective responsibility of the two junior Ministers to ensure that that happens by challenging the Minister of Finance and Personnel’s proposals. A start must be made now, because the problem will exist for many years. The Department of Education’s planned review of special education needs is welcomed, and I await an early and positive outcome. The conclusion of the children’s fund and the subsequent reduction — if not total obliteration — of the associated projects will result in the absolute destruction of any groundwork that had been laid down during the fund’s existence. A recent report commissioned by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Department of Finance and Personnel, and launched by NICCY, clearly illustrates the substantial gap in per capita spend on children’s services here. Northern Ireland faired pitifully against the rest of the UK; Scotland, being the highest contributor, sits at £513 per capita, and Northern Ireland limps home at a pathetic £287 per capita. I urge all Ministers — Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The Member’s time is up. Ms Lo: I am speaking on behalf of Mrs Naomi Long, who is a member of the All-Party Assembly Group on Children and Young People. I entirely agree with all the points that Members have raised, and I have very little to add to those contributions. I agree with Miss McIlveen that investing in children represents value for money. Any society will reap the future benefits of investing in children now. There is an issue of specific concern in the Budget. It seems to my party that the idea is to abolish Executive programme funds, including those specified in the motion, and simply place money into the general pot. That would lead to a total lack of transparency concerning how much money the Executive are setting aside for children and young people, and for much of the work that has been outlined by other Members and in the reports that have been mentioned. We must be sure that funding is being set aside and that it represents value for money. That does not mean that the Executive programme funds must continue exactly as they are or that money must be ring-fenced. However, specific funds must be demarcated for expenditure on children and young people along the lines suggested. MLAs, Members who sit on all-party groups and the public at large must have access to appropriate information so that they can judge the merit of the ongoing work. As we call on the Executive to protect, maintain, and further develop the investment that has been made in children and young people, we also call on the Executive to make clear what funding is being set aside for that purpose in the Budget. We urge consideration of that matter before publication of the Budget later this month. The motion is to be strongly commended and we welcome and support it fully. Mr Shannon: I support the motion that has been proposed by my colleagues, whom I thank for bringing this matter to the attention of the Assembly. It will be no surprise that I, as a member of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, wish to speak on this issue. The commitment has been made to cut poverty in Northern Ireland by half by 2010. There is also a long-term goal to eradicate child poverty in Northern Ireland by 2020. To fulfil that commitment, it is essential that there are programmes in place with long-term strategies that provide long-lasting benefits. In that context, I read the report by Professor Heckman and Mark Greenberg, and came to the same conclusion as those two men — as, obviously, have other Assembly colleagues. That conclusion stems from the fact that, if we invest in our children in order to enhance their social and academic skills, the result will be a new generation of well-adjusted and well-balanced individuals. That is simple common sense. It is a sad fact that, in Northern Ireland, children who are born into troubled homes and who end up in short-term or long-term foster care are less likely to finish school. Of those children, girls are five times more likely to become teenage mothers, and boys are six times more likely to become teenage fathers. That trend alone translates into the fact that children who are born into single-parent families are more likely to live in poverty than those who are from a complete family unit. That again translates into the fact that children from backgrounds of poverty are less likely to finish their education and go on to further education, and so the cycle continues. The Heckman and Greenberg Report suggests that the answer lies in early investment in order to produce financial and social long-term benefits. If we invest in children during their formative early years in order to give them a sense of well-being and confidence, it follows that those well-adjusted children will be more likely to get a job and less likely to follow the crowd and underachieve at school and later in life. The report demonstrates that children who receive stimulation and love from a young age are better able to adapt to the schooling system and interact with their peers. It has also been proven that children who are more settled within school and confident in their role in the classroom are better able to achieve their full potential, inside or outside the classroom. The unfortunate fact is that there are many single-parent families in which the parent is not home very often and low-income families in which both parents must work. That means that the stimulation and love that are essential for the well-being of the child are not readily available. Therefore, such a child will be disadvantaged. It is logical, therefore, that the more help children are given during their formative years by way of social interaction and stimuli, the more they will achieve in life. The knock-on effect of that will be a generation who are higher achieving and who generate more wealth and finance in our economy. The 28% child poverty level in the Province concerns us all. In my constituency of Strangford, in the Ards area, that level is 30%, which is above the provincial average. Many children do not have sufficient clothing and food or do not receive the attention that they require. It is important that the Assembly takes those matters on board. I am not saying that everyone must be an academic — indeed, those of us who are Members of this Assembly perhaps exemplify that point. Whether a person’s expertise relates to the bin lorry or to brain surgery, everyone’s particular skills are essential for a community if it is to survive and thrive. In acknowledgement of that, the children’s fund was set up to fund projects that would make a difference to early-years development and would provide a positive influence in children’s lives by, for example, allowing them to express themselves through art in an after-school club or by giving them something to eat at a breakfast club. All those are vital to children. As a member of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and having subscribed to its pledges on poverty — particularly child poverty — I feel that the findings of the report should be taken into account and that the children and young people’s funding package should not only be maintained but enhanced. The positive impact that that fund has on many children and young people in the Province is hard to measure, but it has made a difference. We are unsure about what benefits will be reaped from it in years to come, but I believe that they will be significant. We will reap from long-term investment in the lives of children in years to come. The Northern Ireland in which our grandchildren will grow up will be a completely new Northern Ireland. Poverty will be part of a history lesson — a thing of the past. That is not a pie-in-the-sky idea; it is achievable if we invest now. I urge the Assembly to invest in the lives of children and to sit back and watch the benefits that that investment will bring about for the generations of the not-so-distant future. Mrs O’Neill: Go raibh maith agat. I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion, and I commend the members of the all-party Assembly group on children and young people on bringing the motion to the House today. Many Members spoke of the benefits of investing in the skills of children in their early years. Research has shown time and time again that that is the case. Professor Heckman’s report demonstrates clearly that early intervention and investment will create more favourable outcomes in the long run if they are targeted at children and young people. That is also true of investment in parenting, to which my colleague Sue Ramsey referred. As we enter 2008, children and young people across the North still face far too many inequalities. There are dire levels of fuel poverty, and 24% of children live at 60% below the average income. Children and young people who live in poverty are much less likely than children overall to achieve five or more GCSE passes at grades A to C. In order to address that, |