Northern Ireland Assembly, 18 January 2022

354 contributions from 34 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I remind Members that, for procedural reasons, the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs will not be in a position to move the motion on the Single Use Carrier Bags Charge (Amendment) Regulations later today. There will therefore be no debate on that item of business.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The first item of business is the consideration of business that was not concluded on Monday 17 January.

Private Members' Business

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

We now come to the second group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 10, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 11 to 14, amendment No 16, amendment Nos 18 to 22, amendment No 31, amendment No 36, amendment No 39, amendment No 48, amendment Nos 58 to 60 and the opposition to clauses 4 and 5 stand part. In group 2, amendment No 11 is mutually exclusive to amendment No 10; amendment Nos 13 and 14 are mutually exclusive to amendment No 12; amendment No 31 is mutually exclusive to amendment No 30; and amendment Nos 36 to 39 are mutually exclusive to amendment No 35.

I call the Minister of Education to move amendment No 10 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to move amendment No 10:

In page 2, line 9, leave out from “its” to “must” in line 10 and insert—

“any functions relating to integrated education the Department of Education may”.

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 11: In page 2, line 9, after “functions” insert “in relation to integrated education”. — [Ms Armstrong.]

No 12: In page 2, line 10, leave out from “any” to end of line 13 and insert —

“—

(a) any body appearing to the Department of Education to have as an objective the encouragement or promotion of integrated education, or

(b) any other body the Department of Education considers appropriate.” — [Miss McIlveen (The Minister of Education).]

No 13: In page 2, line 11, leave out “support and”. — [Ms Armstrong.]

No 14: In page 2, line 12, leave out “promotion of” and insert “support for”. — [Ms Armstrong.]

No 16: In clause 4, page 2, line 18, leave out “promote” and insert “support”. — [Ms Armstrong.]

No 18: In clause 4, page 2, line 23, leave out “promote” and insert “support”. — [Ms Armstrong.]

No 19: In clause 5, page 2, line 25, leave out “the promotion of” and insert “support for”. — [Ms Armstrong.]

No 20: In clause 5, page 2, line 26, leave out “increase” and insert “meet”. — [Ms Armstrong.]

No 21: In clause 5, page 2, line 29, after “to” insert “aim to”. — [Mr Lyttle (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education).]

No 22: In clause 5, page 2, line 30, leave out from “(including” to end of line 32 and insert —

“(including examining evidence of expected future demand)”. — [Mr McCrossan.]

No 31: In clause 8, page 3, line 12, leave out “promotion” and insert “support for”. — [Ms Armstrong.]

No 36: In clause 8, page 3, line 16, leave out “promote” and insert “support”. — [Ms Armstrong.]

No 39: In clause 8, page 3, line 23, leave out “promotion” and insert “support for”. — [Ms Armstrong.]

No 48: In clause 10, page 5, line 18, leave out “promote” and insert “support”. — [Ms Armstrong.]

No 58: In clause 11, page 6, line 8, leave out paragraph (b). — [Mr Allister.]

No 59: In clause 11, page 6, line 9, at end insert —

“(1A) The Department of Education must—

(a) lay the guidance, and each revision, before the Assembly; and

(b) publish the guidance in such a manner as it considers appropriate.” — [Mr Lyttle (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education).]

No 60: In clause 11, page 6, line 10, leave out from “any” to “education,” in line 11 and insert “integrated schools”. — [Mr McCrossan.]

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

We now begin our group 2 debate on advice, guidance and support, with the amendments covering the substance of clause 3, which is on the advisory body to be consulted with by the Department of Education, and the very significant substance of clauses 4 and 5, which relate to the promotion or support of integrated education and what that means. We will decide on some amendments to clauses 8 and 10, although not the substance of those provisions, and on departmental guidance in clause 11.

Whilst I will elaborate on the issues in the clauses at the relevant amendments, suffice to say that clause 3 will bring the Department of Education to a standstill while it consults on every function with an integrated body representative. Clauses 4 and 5 will not achieve the intention of promoting integrated education to a level playing field but will decimate the Education budget for as long as the legislation applies.

Those clauses will not give any oversubscribed integrated school a say on whether meeting demand is manageable for them or on how quality education will be provided in those circumstances. The clauses bring a very high risk of tipping existing schools in every other sector into being unsustainable, and they will leave the Department of Education in the courts rather than focusing on delivering for children. I will return to the issues with those clauses, but they are significant, and the amendments that I have tabled provide a better alternative at each point.

On the advisory body, the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) has drafted amendment No 10 to clause 3 in order to provide that the Department may consult a relevant body on integrated education only. Members may recall that that clause would require the Department to consult such a body in exercising any function — a burdensome, inappropriate and unwieldy requirement. OLC has, at amendment No 12, tied the definition of who the body might be to the existing wording of article 64 of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which provides the power under which the Department funds the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE).

The Bill sponsor stated at Second Stage that she expects the Department to continue to engage NICIE, acknowledging at the same time that my Department does that anyway. I therefore return to the words of Mr O'Dowd, who asked why the Bill was necessary. Both Members acknowledged that that is done anyway, and I do not see clause 3 as necessary. NICIE is involved at all stages of planning for education provision and is formally represented at every level. It sits on the area-planning local groups, which operate at a grassroots level, in exploring the needs of local communities. It sits on the area-planning working group, which is at an operational level, and it actively works to populate the action plans for making changes to provision across local government districts. It also sits on the area-planning steering group at chief executive level, representing its sector on strategic planning issues.

I appreciate that the Bill sponsor has tabled amendment No 11, which seeks to ensure that any consultation requirement relates only to integrated education. While I see the clause as unnecessary, I can only reiterate that I consider the OLC-drafted amendment to be the best guarantee that the Assembly has of having absolute legal accuracy. Taken together, the OLC-drafted amendment Nos 10 and 12 provide a coherent and clear provision that is consistent and workable alongside existing legislation.

I will turn to the promotion of integrated education. As part of this group of amendments, we will start to address clauses 4 and 5, which relate to the Department of Education promoting integrated education and what that means. The Bill sponsor has tabled amendment Nos 14, 16, 18 and 19 in order to change references to the word "promote" to "support", yet she has not significantly changed the associated definition of integrated education. In effect, the Bill sponsor's amendment of that word is meaningless in law and amounts to nothing more than a cosmetic exercise in semantics. However, as Minister of Education, it is my duty to alert the House to the significant implications of this part of the Bill. Members must not be mistaken about the impacts of clauses 4 and 5, which, even with the amendment, are far-reaching.

Taken together, the implications of clauses 4 and 5 are too significant for every other sector in our education system, and their repercussions on the public purse will also be too significant. If, for example, we were to meet unfettered demand, and, taking costs to be around £4,500 per pupil in a post-primary school, for a school taking even 20 additional children, that could result, over seven-year cohorts, in a £650,000 gain for one school but a £650,000 loss for another. Regardless of sector, that is a significant loss that could result in staff redundancies and a reduction of provision and quality of education in the affected school, which would have a knock-on effect on the children in that school through absolutely no fault of their own. That is not fair.

You can imagine the knock-on effects of meeting the unfettered demand, of over 200 additional children a year, in the school previously mentioned by the Bill sponsor. I would argue that that would also be disadvantageous to that school in sourcing teaching and non-teaching staff in the short period between children being allocated places at the end of May and taking them into the school in September. Let us be practical; where would those children then be placed?

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for giving way briefly. Will she accept that the extent of the oversubscription in some schools — I believe that Lagan College, which has been mentioned, is one of the most oversubscribed schools in Northern Ireland — is an indication that assessing, identifying and aiming to meet demand, or area planning to ascertain parental and pupil preference, for integrated education is not working?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

Of course, there are processes in train to enable that to be done. As we look through the amendments, we will see that proposed new clause 5A, in particular, will look to ascertain that demand.

These clauses are not set within the context of any existing legislative provision, and have the potential to undermine and interfere with the important principle of parental preference. Parents have a legitimate expectation to express preferences in the education of their children. However, I remind Members that, even despite the upset caused by the cancellation of last year's tests, around 99% of children were placed in a school of their preference at primary and post-primary level. Integrated education stakeholders have unanimously stated that they support parental preference and want to see provision planned for on the basis of which sector parents want access to rather than the schools that are currently available to choose from. That is the overall intention of these clauses and what they seek to lead to.

In order to protect equity and with a focus on delivering parental preference, as outlined by the aforementioned stakeholders, OLC has drafted an amendment that provides for that preference to be ascertained to inform the strategic planning of education provision, without creating any hierarchy or presumption that places one sector above another. If an integrated solution is what is sought, amendment No 23, which introduces new clause 5A, provides for that. Equally, if parents seek a controlled, maintained or Irish-medium solution, amendment No 23 allows for that to be reflected in strategic planning whilst remaining within the scope of the Integrated Education Bill.

Amendment No 23 is an excellent example of the expertise of OLC drafting. It sets out a legal requirement that meets the stated intention and is workable in practice. That amendment sits in another group, unfortunately, so it will be voted on following the debate on the amendments in group 3 rather than now. I say "unfortunately" because that is a procedural point. In order for me to move amendment No 23, which would bring in the new parental preference clause 5A, which OLC has drafted, I will oppose clauses 4 and 5, as introduced or with the related tabled amendments having been made, standing part of the Bill. We cannot vote on amendment No 23 until the group 3 amendments are debated. However, to allow me to move the new parental preference clause, I urge Members to oppose clauses 4 and 5, as introduced or with the related tabled amendments having been made, standing part of the Bill.

In this section of the debate, I urge Members to agree that clauses 4 and 5 do not stand part of the Bill. We can then provide a workable legislative requirement that makes ascertaining parental preference — whatever type of school that preference may be for; whether in the integrated or any other sector — an explicit duty in primary legislation. It is an example of the complexities of legislation generally, and this Bill specifically, that those absolutely interlinked clauses 4, 5 and proposed new clause 5A will be voted on at different times. Each represents a different piece of the jigsaw that is being put together today. In my view, considering them separately in the way that they have been grouped brings a considerable risk of Members not being in a position to make a well-informed decision. I consider it my duty to emphasise the importance of new clause 5A.

I will explain how new clause 5A, at amendment No 23, would work. It would sit alongside, rather than contradicting, the existing legislative power that provides legal cover for the Education Authority (EA) to plan efficiently to provide sufficient places to meet parental and community needs. That is why the duty is placed on the Education Authority. That duty would explicitly require the Education Authority to ascertain parental preference. It would, staying within the scope of the Integrated Education Bill, enable the Education Authority to ascertain whether that preference is for integrated education in a controlled or a grant-maintained integrated school or in a school that is not, such as a controlled maintained Irish-medium school.

The OLC drafting has ensured that the provision on parental preference works in the Bill and with other legislation, such as articles 5 and 6 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which ensure that efficient and sufficient places are available; article 14 of the 1986 Order, which provides for proposals to be made to meet demand; article 44 of the 1986 Order, which provides for children to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents; and article 9 of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which provides for parents to express a preference about the school that they wish their child to attend. To do anything other than ensure that the Bill that we are debating today complements the wider legislative landscape for education would be folly. We simply cannot arrive at a situation in which legal inconsistencies exist, and, as legislators, we have a responsibility to prevent such a scenario.

Amendment Nos 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 relate to clauses 4 and 5. I welcome the fact that they seek to manage pressure on the education budget and the education system as a whole. I have already stated that changing "promote" to "support" throughout the Bill, including in amendment Nos 31, 36, 39 and 48, would not have any material effect, as it is tied to the definition in clause 5. While aiming to meet demand is certainly an improvement on an unfettered requirement to meet it, such an amendment still falls short and sits within requirements to provide sufficient places in integrated schools. Measures of future demand ignore the religious demographics of an area and the number of existing places in integrated schools.

Members will no doubt recall that the Bill's sponsor referred to parents being refused places at integrated schools and said that integrated schools had fewer available places than schools in other sectors. Let me clarify that with facts. Looking at available places as a proportion of approved enrolments, we can see that integrated schools are similar to those in other sectors, with around 20% of available places compared with their approved enrolment. While that will vary at individual school level, it is no different from other individual schools across all sectors that are oversubscribed. Schools do not refuse children; they admit children up to their approved admission and enrolment number, in line with their legal duty. Where that is exceeded, schools can, if they wish, come to my Department for a variation. For the integrated sector and in line with the duty on my Department, that will be granted if there are no other available places in an integrated school within a reasonable travelling distance. By and large, almost all requests for temporary variations (TVs) in the integrated sector and, indeed, the Irish-medium sector are granted. As I have already stated, the overwhelming proportion of children are placed according to parental preference: it is almost 99%.

I mentioned the currency of the consultation on the Bill. Had the Bill sponsor refreshed her consultation, she might have been aware of the collaborative structures that now exist in planning and the working relationships that have been built up over the past five years to ensure better planning to meet community needs. NICIE has been involved in all aspects of that. Work has commenced on designing an exploratory plan that will take account of community need. Again, had the sponsor engaged, she would be fully aware of that and would not need to put in such clauses on parental preference and demand, as work is already in train to explore that at a strategic level. Of course, all those involved in strategic planning, as well as many others, including school leaders, other Departments and the universities, are taking part in the Innovation Lab in a matter of weeks to design that exploratory plan. It will accompany the operational plan under the next strategic area plan, which is on the cusp of being launched for consultation.

The founders of integrated education fought hard to secure the rights of parents to instigate change in the education system, and those rights are enshrined in the existing education Orders. As a caution to Members, I will say that clauses 4 and 5, as introduced and if amended by the Bill's sponsor and the Committee Chair, could see that right diluted somewhat, given the proposed departmental strategic input. The OLC-drafted clause 5A would retain that right for parents in the sector and leave with them the power to bring forward proposals for change. While some in the sector see that as a disadvantage, others see it as an advantage that they cherish and wish to safeguard.

Nonetheless, if Members mean what they say about supporting parental preference, this point in the debate represents the time for them to stand up, be counted and vote against clauses 4 and 5 and the associated amendments. After the debate on the amendments in group 3, they then need to vote to support the new clause, which will enable the Education Authority to ascertain parental preference.

Area planning has been a real challenge but is becoming easier, because all those involved have worked collaboratively to learn from their experiences and have reviewed and reshaped the practices and processes that have led to the development of the new strategic area plan. The consultation on the new strategic area plan provides an opportunity for everyone to have a say in the planning of education for the next five years.

I turn to "Guidance" at clause 11 and the amendments included in group 2. I express concern about what purpose amendment No 59, tabled by the Chair of the Education Committee, serves. The Department of Education can lay guidance before the Assembly, but to what purpose? Guidance on the final form of the Integrated Education Bill will be mainly for arm's-length bodies and schools; amendment No 60 makes more sense in that regard than the Bill as introduced. It means that proper, substantial guidance, for example in the form of a letter or circular to schools, will be published on the Department's website, a method of guidance that is familiar to our schools and all those involved in education.

Essentially, our schools have enough to cope with, especially in view of the challenges that we, as a society, have faced over the past two years. Many principals whom I have met and spoken to have told me about the administrative pressures that they are under. Do we really need them to have to look for guidance laid in the Assembly as well? I do not wish to place any further unnecessary administrative pressures on our schools, particularly when those additional pressures would reap no reward for our children and young people's education. The more departmental time is tied up in procedure, the less departmental time is available to deliver for the children and young people in our schools.

Therefore, I urge Members not to vote for amendment No 59 and not to use the legislative process as a means of placing meaningless actions in law that provide no tangible benefit. The law should not be used in that way, and to do so makes a mockery of our role as Members of the legislative Assembly. We must remember that, however we piece the legislative jigsaw together, it must make sense and work as a whole, and children and young people must be front and centre in benefiting from the final legislation that we produce.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

The Education Committee proposes two amendments in group 2. The Bill sponsored by Alliance MLA Kellie Armstrong seeks to ensure parental and pupil choice for integrated education and that it be assessed, identified and met. It included, at clause 4, a duty to promote integrated education; "promotion" is defined in clause 5. The Education Committee agreed on the revision of the wording of "meeting demand" in clause 5, requiring instead that the Department should "aim to" meet demand. Accordingly, the Education Committee proposes amendment No 21.

The Committee took advice from a range of sources, such as Assembly Legal Services, Assembly Research and Information Services (RaISe), the Examiner of Statutory Rules, the Bill Office, the Speaker's Office and the Education Committee secretariat. That advice gave rise to the Education Committee's amendment No 59. The proposal is simple and derives from the basic tenets of transparency, awareness and effectiveness. In the amendment, the Committee proposes that each iteration of guidance made under clause 11 should be laid before the Assembly and published by the Department.

Speaking in my capacity as Alliance education spokesperson, I express my disappointment that other parties were not willing to support a legislative duty on the Department of Education to promote integrated education, but I acknowledge and recognise that a lot of work has been done with the Bill sponsor and, indeed, on a cross-party basis to resolve that matter. There is disappointment, however, particularly given that there is an existing duty to promote shared education and that the Department of Education commissioned an independent review of integrated education that clearly recommended legislation to place a duty on the Department of Education and a power on all other arm's-length bodies to:

"encourage, facilitate and promote integrated education".

I regret that Peter Weir MLA is not in the Chamber today, because his contribution yesterday on that Department of Education-commissioned independent review of integrated education was really quite concerning. I believe that he referred to it as being "not truly independent". I ask Peter Weir MLA in what way it was not truly independent, and, indeed, in what way the independent review of education is independent where the independent review of integrated education is not. I think that it is profoundly unhelpful for a former Education Minister to refer to a review of that nature, which has made substantive recommendations, many of which have now been forwarded for consideration by the independent review of education, to make that assertion that it was "not truly independent". I think that it would be helpful for those comments to be clarified.

It is for other parties to make the case as to why promotion of integrated education in Northern Ireland does not merit legislative provision, though I acknowledge the extensive cross-party work that gone on to try to overcome that particular challenge.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Yes, I am happy to give way.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I appreciate that. I have been following the proceedings. The Member referred to the fact that I was not physically in the Chamber. Obviously, that was to do with the restrictions on numbers. The Member referred to me with regard to the report on integrated education in 2016. While many worthwhile things came out of that, we should bear in mind that it was published and written by two people, and one of the authors was the president of NICIE. To my mind, that suggests that, in terms of pure independence as opposed to someone making a strong argument for a particular sector, you have to query how independent that was. Many worthy things were produced by that report, but it is not the same as somebody looking objectively from outside. That has to be borne in mind as a caveat. It became a wish list, as well as identifying issues that everyone could genuinely embrace.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I am not sure how helpful it was, and I am not going to dwell on it. It may be something that we will return to.

The Member acknowledged that there were two co-chairs of the independent review, one of whom has extensive experience in integrated education and another who is an extremely capable professor, I believe, at Queen's University Belfast. The independent review of education contains similarly experienced and skilled people who also have experience in particular sectors with particular interests. I still hold that I think that the assertions regarding the independence of the review have been extremely unhelpful. Once members are appointed, there has to be a degree of trust placed in the work that they are going to carry out. Indeed, widespread engagement is conducted by the chairs of those reviews to ensure that their outcomes in the recommendations represent the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland.

My understanding is that Peter Weir MLA, in his role as Minister of Education, recommended that any outstanding recommendations of that independent review be considered and form part of the independent review of education. If it was felt meritorious for them to be considered by the independent review of education, why now question the independence of those recommendations and put some query over them?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Yes, I am happy to give way.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

There are a couple of points relating to that. I am not suggesting that a lot of the recommendations are not without merit. The point is that we are saying that if a report is produced, one of the two authors of which is the president of NICIE, that will create a particular viewpoint. There is nothing wrong with somebody having that particular viewpoint, but let us not pretend that it is something which has simply come out of the ether entirely independently.

A number of the recommendations that were put forward were implemented. A few were felt to be inappropriate, and it was felt that a better way of looking at them was for them to be considered as part of the wider review. That does not necessarily mean that the wider review will accept, reject or implement them, but rather that it will give consideration to them.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I will move on. The co-authors of that independent review may wish to reflect on the fact that their independence and the independence of their work and recommendations were brought into question in the Assembly both yesterday and today. They may wish to engage with Members as a result of that.

I acknowledge the willingness of the Bill sponsor to make a reasonable compromise and to adjust the wording of the legislation from the "promotion" of integrated education, as recommended by the independent review of integrated education, to "support for" integrated education. I sincerely hope that that allows for the passage of other important provisions of the Bill on assessing and aiming to meet the demand for integrated education.

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

The Minister's reference to the fairly substantive engagement with the Education Committee and, as I understand, all political parties in the Assembly about "promotion" or "support for" integrated education as "a cosmetic exercise in semantics" is fairly unhelpful, to be honest.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Yes. Although you did not give way to me yesterday, I will happily —.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I am sure that you are not one —.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Let us start off on a better footing today.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I am sure that you are not one to hold a grudge.

In your contribution, you just used the words "promotion" and "support" as being interchangeable. Does that not cut to the heart of the fact that this is cosmetic tinkering around the edges?

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I did not use them interchangeably. I referred to the fact that a lot of work went into making the change from "promote" to "support". Indeed, as the Minister said, whatever term is used, it will have some degree of linkage to other clauses of the Bill, which have also been amended as a result of extensive engagement. I will not dwell on this, but my point is that it is unhelpful to use the phrase "a cosmetic exercise" to describe that engagement. We can move on from that.

The consistent tactic of attempting to paint a picture of non-engagement on the part of Kellie Armstrong is rather underhand. I am sure that, as she has done calmly and politely throughout the Bill's consideration, Kellie will be content to rebut that tactic in relation to what were constructive and extensive efforts to engage with parties on some of the areas of the Bill about which Members had concern.

The Minister also referred to similarities between aiming to meet the demand of parental and pupil preference for integrated education and aiming to meet the demand for other types of provision. The Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe) helpfully compiled some of the data for us, however, and found that:

"a greater proportion of integrated primary schools (17.8%) were oversubscribed in comparison to non-integrated primaries (11.5%)."

It also found that:

"a slightly higher proportion of integrated post-primaries (25%) were oversubscribed compared to non-integrated ... post-primaries (23.4%)".

There are differences in access. For example, in 2018-19, in the primary sector, 12% of all places in integrated schools were unfilled, whereas, for non-integrated, that figure was 20%. There are some differences, and attempting to paint a picture —.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Yes. I will just finish quickly. It is not accurate to paint a picture of there being no difference. I am happy to give way.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I will return to the point about the interchangeability of the terms "promote" and "support". I was encouraged by the Member to seek out the dictionary definition of "promote". Would it surprise the Member that the dictionary definition of "promote" is to "support or actively encourage"? How can he say that there is a difference when there clearly is not?

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I have already said that extensive work was done to ensure that whatever term is used is acceptable. The word "promote" raised particular concern for some reasons. The definition is linked to other clauses that have been proposed for amendment, which, I understand, the Bill sponsor is willing to accept. Work has been done, changes have been made and concerns have been addressed to some extent in that regard. I hope that we will see that during the debate and that that will ensure that the wide range of other provisions that are being put forward in the Bill are enacted.

The Minister attempted to make the case that area planning is all equal and the same. The area planning working group and the area planning steering group conduct extensive engagement to ensure that the parental and pupil preference for education in Northern Ireland is met. Reference was made to the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education being on the level of the Education Authority and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS): they are not the same. NICIE is not a planning authority, but EA and CCMS are. The motive of the Bill is to ensure that there is a fair approach to identifying, assessing and aiming to meet demand for integrated education and, in instances where there is significant oversubscription in particular areas and a lack of parental and pupil choice, to ensure that that is met without any reference to any other sector being made.

I support the Bill, as amended by the sponsor, and I will move the other amendments on behalf of the Education Committee.

Nicola Brogan (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. As an Education Committee member, I have spent many hours poring over the details of the Bill, alongside my Committee colleagues. It is great to get to this stage. I also thank the Bill sponsor, Kellie Armstrong, for her work in bringing it to the Assembly and her entire team, including Fiona, for the constructive work that we have carried out together. I also thank my fellow Committee members for the work that we have undertaken as a group while scrutinising the Bill, and I thank Committee staff, including the Clerk and her team, for the long hours and hard work that they have put in to help us to scrutinise the Bill throughout Committee Stage.

From the outset of the process, it was important to acknowledge the role and contribution of all sectors that deliver education here. It was also important that, in progressing the Bill, we did not undermine or disadvantage other sectors while bringing about much-needed support and assistance for the integrated sector. I thank the Bill sponsor for being attentive to the concerns of a wide range of groups and organisations in the education system here and for listening to those concerns and tabling amendments that ensure that no sector will be unfairly promoted over another. The amendments tabled by the Bill sponsor in group 2 will ensure that the challenges facing the integrated sector will be acknowledged and that the much-needed support will be put in place to help to meet the demand for integrated school places. I support the amendments tabled by the Bill sponsor in the group, including the ones that will remove the word "promote" in clauses 4 and 5 and replace it with "support". That change, alongside amendment Nos 20 and 21, will ensure that the needs of the integrated sector are met without putting other sectors in the education system at a disadvantage.

We had a significant period of engagement on the Bill throughout Committee Stage. It was through that process that we realised how complex the legislation was. It was a useful exercise. I voice my support for the Committee amendments in the group. Throughout the process, we listened to a range of concerns and worked hard with others to address them. We have a shared obligation to give all our children the best start in life. As a party, we remain committed to supporting all sectors in their work to provide equality of opportunity, mutual understanding and respect, as well as tackling underachievement.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I support the Minister's amendment Nos 10 and 12 and amendment No 58 in the name of Mr Jim Allister. I stand in opposition to clauses 4 and 5, as detailed by the Minister. Amendment No 10 to clause 3, page 2, line 9 is:

"Leave out from ‘its’ to ‘must’ in line 10 and insert ‘any functions relating to integrated education the Department of Education may’".

Amendment No 12 to clause 3, page 2, line 10 is:

"Leave out from ‘any’ to end of line 13 and insert - ‘— (a) any body appearing to the Department of Education to have as an objective the encouragement or promotion of integrated education, or (b) any other body the Department of Education considers appropriate.’"

Mr Allister's amendment No 58 to clause 11, page 6, line 8 is:

"Leave out paragraph (b)".

In many ways, the amendments to clause 4 are intended to appease those of us who have difficulty with the word "promote" by changing it to "support". As Mr Stalford has pointed out, however, the dictionary definition means that the change of wording does absolutely nothing to change the meaning of clause 4. The clause elevates integrated education above all other education sectors in Northern Ireland. The word "support" does not mitigate that problem in any way. It still means that other sectors would come a poor second when it comes to policy setting and funding to meet demand. If the Department were to invest in the promotion of integrated education, as required by the Bill, it is likely that that would be at the expense of other sectors. Ms Armstrong's amendment to change the word "promote" to "support" does not in any way mitigate that. It still places a legal duty to lift, in both policy and financial maintenance, integrated education above all other sectors. That would be to the detriment of the other sectors and is therefore clearly inequitable.

Yesterday, when Mr Allister asked the Bill sponsor, Ms Armstrong, whether any other sector would enjoy such privilege as the Bill would provide to integrated education, I was struck by her response. She shrugged her shoulders, indicating, I think, either, "I do not know", or maybe even, "I do not care". Only the Bill sponsor can tell us what the shrug of her shoulders in response to that question actually meant.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I am grateful to my colleague for giving way. This morning, we will all have heard the announcement from the Department about the number of empty desks and the threat that that poses to many smaller schools, particularly in rural constituencies. In that context, does my colleague agree that, given the financial burdens that the Bill would place on the Department at this time, without the full review of education having being carried out, it would be very foolish indeed to go down that route?

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member has raised a point and built on an argument that was made yesterday, which is that the Bill would impose additional financial burdens.

We know that, within three years, the Education budget will have a shortfall of about £300 million. We know that already. The proper process would have been to allow the independent review to do its work and then comment on it: if Ms Armstrong had not been satisfied with the review, she could have commented on it at that stage.

I pay tribute to the Minister for seeking the professional advice of OLC. I understand that she had some difficulty in getting support for doing so from the Executive. I welcome that, by agreeing to let OLC do its work, the Executive recognised that there were problems with the Bill that needed to be put right, or put as right as best as possible. However, I do not believe that we will end up with a good Bill, even with the professional amendments that the Minister has tabled. This is a bad Bill. It will be made slightly better by the OLC's advice and support, but it will not be a good Bill.

On clause 5 —

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I will give way.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Member clarify why it is a bad Bill, given that our Bill Office provided the amendments and legal advice to me?

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I am aghast; I am absolutely aghast at that. What were we saying until 9.00 pm last night? What have we been saying today, and what will be said today, at least from this side of the Chamber, about the errors in the Bill? What about the advice that was offered? What about the people who came to give evidence and their dissatisfaction with the Bill and the approach? We will talk about that, as the Member is shaking her head; she is not sure about that. We will talk about that.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not a member of the Education Committee.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order. Can we have clarity? Is the Member giving way? We cannot have two Members on the Floor at the same time.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I will give way, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I am not exactly sure what Mr Newton is getting at. I am not a member of the Committee, so would not have got the information from the Committee's consultation. I consulted with an extraordinary number of people and gave evidence to the Committee. The issue was not raised then.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I am even more befuddled. There is a communications issue in all of this, but we will raise a few points first.

Kellie's — sorry, Ms Armstrong's — amendment to change the word "increase" to "meet" in clause 5 will not mitigate the serious implications that have been discussed; they will all still apply. The duty that the clause imposes on the Department of Education will be significant and will not be enjoyed by the controlled, maintained or, indeed, Irish language sectors.

Ms Armstrong said that she was not privy to the information received by, or discussions that took place in, the Education Committee. Considering the importance of the Bill to Ms Armstrong, and the work that her researcher has done for her, I would have thought that it was likely that someone would have been watching —

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

— the Education Committee meetings on her behalf, or that there would have been communication between her and the Chair as they are members of the same party. One would have thought that she would have been kept up to speed on the issue.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Legal advice provided to the Committee is privileged, and I did not have access to it.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

We are talking about the evidence.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I am talking about the legal advice.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I am not sure that that is a point of order. The Member has made her point. I ask the Member to resume his contribution.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I am becoming more and more befuddled.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. I will try to help by being as clear as possible. The Member and others have referred to evidence and advice. The Member will be aware that some of the advice that was provided to the Education Committee, such as legal advice, cannot be shared with the sponsor of the Bill. It is entirely accurate for the Bill sponsor to make it clear to the House and publicly that, no matter how adherent she and her researchers have been to every jot and tittle of the numerous meetings that the Committee held on the Bill, some elements of matters discussed at that stage are not privy to her or her researcher. Is that fair to say?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order. I encourage Members to return to the substance of the group 2 amendments. I ask all Members to concentrate on them, rather than getting caught up in some wider argument. We are at the group 2 amendments.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

You are, of course, correct, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Lyttle makes a valid point that some aspects of the evidence that was gathered when the Committee was in private session or some advice would not be circulated widely. However, in general, the Committee meetings are held in public and there is a record of the meetings.

Let me see whether I can be helpful to the sponsor of the Bill. Where this part of the Bill and advice, guidance and support are concerned, an extensive amount of information was given in public. I will quickly refer to some aspects of that extensive amount of information. Much has been made of the fact that children do not get into their first choice of school and that demand for integrated education is far above that for the other sectors of education. One piece of information that is publicly available is a paper that was provided by the Assembly's Research and Information Service. The Assembly is fortunate to have that research service because its talents, dedication and so on are exceptional. It made a point about the demand for integrated education, and, with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will read three short areas from that paper that should be noted:

"Research suggests that there are challenges in measuring actual demand for integrated education, particularly in terms of accounting for other drivers of school choice, such as the school's reputation, location, size, ethos and philosophy."

It also states:

"Other research suggests that despite the high levels of support for integrated education reported in opinion polls, many parents and communities value particular school sectors."

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

Let me finish this point and then I will give way to the Member. It may add something to what he is going to say.

Another paragraph says that the Department of Education informed RaISe of the fact that, last year:

"For the Year 1 process, 96.58% of children who applied to an integrated primary school at first preference got into that school. Across all schools, the figure was 98.25%."

Therefore, the success of first preference applications for integrated primary and post-primary schools in 2021 was fairly comparable with that of all other schools.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for giving way. The consequence of the clauses that we are discussing is that every request for an integrated place must be met. Every single request must be facilitated.

The direct consequence of that measure would be that good primary schools and good secondary schools outside the integrated sector would be forced to close.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for his intervention and the points that he has made.

I return to the word "promote". Another piece of information, which is readily available to those who want to look for it, is evidence that the Department of Education gave to the Committee. On the promotion of integrated education, the Department stated:

"The Bill seeks to require the Department to promote integrated education [clause 4], defining what it means by this [clause 5]. This wording intentionally replicates the Shared Education (Northern Ireland) Act 2016. However Shared Education is a programme".

Shared education is not a sector; those are my words, not the Department's. The Department said:

"Shared Education is a programme, open to all schools in all sectors. Integrated education is not a programme; it is a sector."

That evidence is quite easily available.

I will finish on this — or maybe not, as I might have another couple of wee bits to add very quickly. On meeting demand, in response to the private Member's Integrated Education Bill, the Education Authority stated:

"The EA is the employing authority for all Controlled Integrated schools, which represent an increasing percentage of all Integrated schools. At September 2021, 30 of the 68 Integrated schools in Northern Ireland are Controlled Integrated schools. It is also important to note that all Controlled Schools welcome pupils from a diverse range of backgrounds and seek to provide an ethos which is inclusive and respectful of all within the school community."

If the Bill is passed in its current form, controlled schools — and 44% of schools that employ integrated policies are controlled — will be disadvantaged. That information is readily available to the Bill sponsor.

The Controlled Schools' Support Council's (CSSC) evidence to the Committee is also readily available to all who want to see it. The Controlled Schools' Support Council stated in writing:

"In addition to the changes proposed for DE and EA in clause 4, clause 6 calls for other education bodies to include provision for integrated education in their strategies, plans and policies. This would appear to be an unreasonable and unworkable request for a number of the designated education bodies. Once again the Controlled Schools’ Support Council, despite representing 49% of schools in Northern Ireland, is not listed here amongst the list of other education bodies."

Those are folk with a point to make.

I will finish with evidence from the Church of Ireland representatives. No, I will not actually; I will hold that for a later time, Mr Speaker.

The point is this: through the two clauses that we are particularly concerned about because of their attempt to promote one sector above the other sectors, we would be doing the opposite — the complete opposite — of what we as an Assembly should be doing. We want all our children to be educated together. We want all our children to be treated fairly. We want the division of the Education budget among our schools to be equitable, regardless of what sector they are in. We want that to happen. The steps that we are taking today would take us in the opposite direction. Given all the concerns that have been presented, I fail to see why the Bill continues to go forward —

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way briefly?

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

— with so little opposition. I am actually finished.

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

I am happy to debate the Bill further and discuss the various amendments in group 2.

I will start by outlining some of the points that we have raised. For instance, clause 3 as drafted will require the Department to consult a recognised body about any function that it exercises towards any such body that:

"includes in its objectives the provision of support and advice to the Department"

of Education about integrated education. Without a doubt, such advice is necessary and will be helpful. I am therefore content to move in the general direction in which that clause leads.

We may need to establish some boundaries, however. My proposed amendment to clause 3 — amendment No 15 — is, again, a probing amendment, and it has been discussed with the Bill sponsor in recent days. We all know that preschool provision includes nursery and playgroup provision. Although nursery schools and units fall clearly within the remit of the Department of Education, playgroups operate through social services, which come under the Department of Health not the Department of Education. My concern is that there may be a cross-cutting aspect to the clause. There may therefore be a need to specify where the boundaries lie. The amendment is proposed in that spirit, and the Bill sponsor will most likely pick up on that when it comes to her time to respond.

The wording of amendment No 15 is self-explanatory. It simply sets out to determine the boundaries of the consultation concerning integrated education so that there is no problem with matters becoming cross-cutting. Since amendment No 10 and/or amendment No 12 will hopefully be made, I will no longer need to seek much clarity on that, but I would appreciate some outline from the Bill sponsor.

The declared intention of clause 4 is to amend the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and the Education Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 to include a duty to "promote" integrated education. If the Bill sponsor's amendments to clause 4 are accepted, there will be a duty placed on the Department of Education and the Education Authority to "support" integrated education, alongside their existing duties to encourage and facilitate it.

It is no secret that, throughout the process, I and others have raised concerns with the Bill sponsor at Committee level about particular drafting problems. That is our responsibility as legislators and as members of the Committee when we are scrutinising a Bill. Our responsibility is to seek as much clarification as possible and to ensure that that clarification is brought to the wording in order to minimise the prospects of any potential future legal challenge emerging. I wish to ensure that everyone is clear that the duties imposed in the Bill are not seen as being superior to the duties already conferred in other legislation. To speak of "the duty" could therefore be interpreted as that duty taking precedence over other duties. We had that conversation with the Bill sponsor, and she has been very accommodating and has recognised the reasoning behind my amendment No 17. Put simply, that amendment to new section 2(3A) in the 2014 Act under clause 4 of the Bill seeks to ensure that there is no lack of clarity on the equality of legal duties. Our choice of words in the amendment adds clarity to the intention to make it "a duty" to stand alongside other duties, not on top of them or before them. Again, I appreciate the Bill sponsor's understanding in that regard.

Through amendment No 18 to clause 4, the Bill sponsor addresses concerns that were raised strongly at Committee Stage. The intention of Jim Allister and the Minister is to remove clause 4 entirely. As a party, we have considered that at considerable length. We are of the view that that measure goes too far, and we will not be able to support it.

Through amendment No 19 to clause 5, the Bill sponsor addresses a concern that was raised strongly at Committee. Furthermore, in amendment No 20 to clause 5, the Bill sponsor puts forward a more measured and temperate approach to meeting the needs of provision for the demand for integrated education. Again, I thank the Bill sponsor for that.

In amendment No 21 to clause 5, the Committee Chair clearly outlines that there is a more measured and temperate way to approach meeting the needs of provision for demand for integrated education. I am content with that.

The Bill sponsor and I discussed amendment No 22 to clause 5 in detail, and we will continue to consider those conversations, particularly before voting commences today.

Clause 5 stands alongside clause 4, in that it defines "promotion" or, if the Bill sponsor's amendment passes, "support". For instance, the legal advice suggests that clauses 4 and 5 stand together and that the words used in clause 4 take the meaning that is given to them in clause 5. Clause 5 is, therefore, vital to our whole understanding of what promoting or supporting is. That is where we may encounter some difficulty. If we go back to clause 1, there is the clear understanding that, to be an integrated school, reasonable numbers of children from all backgrounds should be enrolled in that school. However, if there is no consideration at all for the religious demographics of the area under consideration, it could be problematic or even a contradiction in terms. We must consider the area when it comes to having reasonable numbers. Again, we have had that discussion at length with the Bill sponsor. What does "reasonable numbers" mean? There is a bit of uncertainty about that, and it needs to be probed further.

Likewise, we cannot totally ignore the number of spare places in existing schools when we are trying to ensure the efficient and effective use of resources at system level. Many Members mentioned that in their contributions and will continue to do so. The approach in clause 5 could be considered as being too absolute. I venture to say that the solution to the problem of insufficient places for pupils who wish to attend integrated schools needs to be found in looking at how area planning operates, but not in the absolute way in which subsection 1(b) of that clause sets out. Instead, I propose that a robust method for gathering evidence of future demand in an area is formulated and fed into the area-planning process so that parental preferences can be taken into account. Appropriate provision will result from that.

The SDLP firmly believes in parental preference, and the amendment in my name is, to my mind, fair to all in that regard. Please bear in mind that the wording that precedes my suggested amendment in clause 5(1)(a) reads:

"identifying, assessing, monitoring and aiming to meet the demand for the provision of integrated education".

I ask Members to note that I refer to the Bill sponsor's proposed amendment when quoting those words. A strong commitment to integrated education is contained in all of that, and that is key to addressing the problem of insufficient places in some areas. Again, we continue to engage widely on that issue. We have been doing so throughout the process. I have outlined some of the concerns that we have. We expressed those to the Bill sponsor. Hopefully, we will get the clarification that we need before voting goes ahead.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Again, I am glad to be able to contribute to the debate on the Integrated Education Bill. I will pick up on the point at which my colleague Mr Newton left off. My party is concerned about ensuring that education is a priority for the Assembly, that it is fair to all sectors, that the distribution of resources for education is equitable, and that no sector is promoted over another. If we start from that premise and then examine clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill, we immediately encounter significant problems.

For the record, there are four main sectors in Northern Ireland concerned with education: controlled, maintained, integrated and Irish-medium. Essentially outside those sectors are the voluntary grammar schools. At the moment, schools that are designated as integrated already have an extra duty applied to them in law. Article 64 of the 1989 Order states:

"It shall be the duty of the Department to encourage and facilitate the development of integrated education".

A similar duty is applied to the Irish-medium sector by way of the 1998 Order. In essence, these two sectors already enjoy a special privilege that is not afforded to other sectors, the controlled or the maintained.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I will finish the point and then I will give way.

What is going to happen if clauses 4 and 5 are voted through? They will put a duty on the Department to include an additional duty in relation to the integrated sector, and that will be to "promote". My colleague Mr Stalford, who has left the Chamber temporarily, has proved that "promote" and "support" are fairly interchangeable and have no substantial difference in meaning. We are moving away from a position where children and sectors are treated equitably, and that is a regressive step for education. I do not think that our education system is perfect. There is room and need for change in education, in how we deliver education and in the broad, even basis of what we teach. However, we cannot do it in isolation for one sector, and that is what clauses 4 and 5 do.

I will give way, and then I have some more points to make around the sector.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. I have two quick points. Will the Member accept that, if the amendments pass at Consideration Stage, the Bill will not promote integrated education? Also, how well does it reflect on the fulfillment of the Department of Education's duty to encourage and facilitate integrated education when schools like Strangford College have to take a judicial review in order for simple development proposals to be accepted by the Department of Education?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

We do not want to engage in semantics around "promote" and "support". They are pretty much the same thing. In fact, some people I spoke to in my evidence-gathering for the Bill indicated that "support" has perhaps an even stronger meaning than "promote", so I am not really interested in the semantics of this. I think that it is essentially and fundamentally wrong to place a duty on the Department in respect of one sector that it does not have in respect of other parts of the education system.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way again?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

No. I want to come on to the issue of development proposals, and we will deal with those issues there.

When I look at amendment Nos 13, 14, 16 and 19, I see amendments that perhaps strengthen the Bill and do not in any way diminish the inequality that will be associated with the Bill. In preparing for the debate and in discussions around the Bill, I have in particular reached out to other sectors. Most sectors will have had contact with our members on the Education Committee.

At this point, while I remember, as an aside, I say that, when we talk about consultation for a Bill of this magnitude, remembering that the changes will mean an awful lot to people in Northern Ireland, we are referring, of course, to the consultation in 2016-17 and the lack of consultation before the Bill was introduced.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

No, we have exhausted the point about consultation, to be honest, and we all have a view on the consultation. That is the truth of the matter.

I have been speaking to a number of the other sectors, and I will read, for the record of the House, the response — a few sentences from the response, you will be relieved to know — from the Catholic maintained sector. In its response, it says:

"The inclusion of the word 'promotion' could be interpreted as one sector of education being given priority over all other sectors."

Lest you think that it is just me or my colleagues raising dust or a fuss, I want you to understand, and I want the record of the House to understand, what other sectors are saying about the use of the words "promotion" and "support". I go back to the response from CCMS, which states:

"The 1989 Order established the Department as a facilitator of development proposals initiated by a third party. The introduction of the word 'promote' into statute changes the dynamics with the Department effectively finding itself having to favour one sector over another shifting the DE role to pro-active initiation of area planning solutions with integrated education at the core."

Those are not my words; that is the response from CCMS on the changes that would come about by changing the dynamic and having one sector being promoted or supported while other sectors are not in that position. That takes us to an issue that is for the next set of amendments that we will debate: how the words "promote" and "support" will interact with area-planning solutions and how the Department will have to act as the promoter and supporter of integrated education in that area.

When we got legal advice — and not to divulge that advice — it was pretty clear from anyone whom we talked to about the Bill that this is a series of judicial reviews (JRs) just waiting to happen, and I can certainly see a number of those in this area of the Bill. Essentially, those parties that will fast-track and push on ahead with the legislation are actually making legislation, crossing their fingers and hoping that it will all be all right in the end. That is a dreadful position for us all to be in.

I will turn very briefly to clause 5. Again, I have very considerable concerns about clause 5. We have already established that the duty on the Department, under the Bill, will be significantly different for integrated education than it will be for any other sector in Northern Ireland. The duty in clause 5, as originally drafted, would ask the Department, without equivocation, to provide:

"sufficient places in integrated schools to meet the demand for integrated education (including expected future demand".

I sat through the budget stuff that came to the Committee, and officials explained to us, in very great detail, how the budget, over the next three years, has at least a £350 million hole in it. That is just to stand still. That is not to start to treat the inequalities in education and implement something like 'A Fair Start'. We are just standing still, and we already have a gap of £350 million. The Sinn Féin Finance Minister has now decreed that there will be a further 2% cut across that budget as a whole. Yet, in the Bill, the Department is expected to meet future demand without equivocation. There is only so much cloth, and you have to cut it accordingly to make sure that you meet demands. However, the legal onus that the Bill places on the Department means that other sectors will suffer in order "to meet the demand" in clause 5. I go back again, without any apology, to what my colleague Mr Newton said and to what I said at the start: how is that fair or equitable in any society? How are we treating equitably the 90% of children who are educated in controlled, maintained and Irish-medium schools if we rush through clause 5?

I want to address — I will address this in the group 3 debate as well — the fact that there is an onus on the Department to do that. From looking at the evidence that we were given, I see that, if I am correct, NICIE has a budget of £632 million, I think — sorry, £632,000. It has staff, it works with boards of governors, it has area-planning structures, and it is fully integrated into the area-planning process, yet the Department is to take that on. Who will take it on for the controlled sector? CCMS, of course, will carry on with its statutory duty to promote and look after Catholic education, and that is entirely fine. The Department will be mandated to take that on for the integrated sector, but who will look after the controlled sector? Of course, EA, as the general planning authority and as the managing authority for the Controlled Schools' Support Council (CSSC), will be the body responsible. However, at the end of the day, you have to ask this: where is the plan for the controlled sector in the Bill? How is that equitable for all our children?

I will leave it there. I, of course, do not support clauses 4 and 5. In an age when other parties in the House scream about equality on everything, those clauses are an example of inequality at its height.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

As we consider these clauses, particularly clauses 4 and 5, we need to be mindful of the practical implications that will flow from their wording. I have great concerns that the outworkings of clauses 4 and 5 will serve only to encourage educational discrimination. I know that that is not the Member's intention, but I fear that it would be the result.

In its elevation of the integrated sector above all others, clause 4 will create a hierarchy of education provision in Northern Ireland in which children attending schools in our two main sectors — Catholic maintained and state controlled — will be at the bottom. That was the main concern highlighted throughout the Committee's evidence sessions.

Representatives from CCMS stated:

"the Bill does not appear to recognise the contribution and diversity of the Catholic maintained sector".

They continued:

"the Bill is at odds with ensuring diversity and respect and would fundamentally create a two-tiered system of education provision."

That would pit the integrated sector against the other sectors. I agree with that assessment. That is how I see the outworkings of clause 4 in particular and the onus on the Department "to encourage, facilitate and promote". There is no way that such promotion will not create a hierarchy of education provision that will have to be evidenced in everything that the Department does, from policy on area planning to funding allocations for each sector.

I acknowledge that the sponsor's amendments have gone some way to address a number of my concerns, but, unfortunately, my principal concern still stands: the impact of additional duties on the Department in respect of integrated education, be they described as promotion or support, and the subsequent impact that this will have on other sectors, a point highlighted multiple times at Second Reading.

With an ever-diminishing budget, there will be an ever-diminishing pot of money for allocation. I ask Members how they expect principals of controlled and maintained schools in their constituency to react when it becomes impossible to fund their school's enhanced programmes or to provide additional money in their budgets because their sector is at the bottom of the new hierarchy. I am very happy to support the concept of integration and the integrated sector, but not to the detriment of all else.

The outworkings of clauses 4 and 5, if they receive support from the House, will have a profound effect on how education is provided across Northern Ireland. If we have to disadvantage other sectors, we must conclude that the Bill is not good for the education system as a whole and therefore not good law. As such, I will oppose clauses 4 and 5.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I wish to refer to some of the areas that are contained in the second group of amendments. As the Minister highlighted, there is some read-across with the third group. The principal concerns that have been raised on this side of the House focus on clauses 4 and 5. While it was right to point out the flaws and the dangers in those clauses, it is also important that solutions be provided. That is why it is significant and important that, in getting the wording right and getting something that is fit for purpose, the Minister's amendment introducing new clause 5A does not leave us simply with a vacuum but creates a situation in which solutions are provided.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order. I encourage the Member to make sure that he is being picked up by the microphone.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

OK. I would hate to think that some of my words might be missed for posterity, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will resolve to speak into the microphone.

A theme has run through each group of amendments, as highlighted by the Minister and some of the other Members who have spoken. Indeed, even some Members who supported the legislation did so with caveats. They say that they are happy to support particular clauses but that they cannot be to the detriment of any other sector. It is undoubtedly the case that the Bill as drafted and, indeed, some of the amendments will lead to a level of inequality.

A number of amendments substitute "promotion" with "support for". As highlighted by my colleague Mr Stalford, however, the definitions of the two seem to be fairly interchangeable. There does not appear to be any particular indication that there is a difference between their legal meaning; it is a semantic change. Where support is given to one sector and there is an explicit legal duty to support that sector — it is not simply the intention of a particular Minister but is in primary legislation — and that support is not available to other sectors, that undoubtedly creates imbalance.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way briefly. He accepts the additional duty to encourage and facilitate integrated education.

If the Minister accepts and, indeed, supports or acquiesces in that additional duty, why can we not make other duties and other provisions pertaining to integrated education, particularly if integrated schools have to take judicial reviews in order to advance development proposals?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

With respect to that —

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

OK. I will give way, and then I will deal with a couple of points.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

A news report today said that, by 2030, the Department of Education will have to find an additional 2,000 special educational needs places. In that context, what does it say about the party that is bringing forward the Bill that it prioritises one sector over all others?

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. To clarify, this is my private Member's Bill. Thanks.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I will deal with the points of information, as, I suspect, the point of order was not a point of order, but that is by the by

[Interruption.]

What was that?

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Neither was the intervention.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order. I urge Members to stop having conversations from a sedentary position.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I do not suggest that a ruling is needed, but the Member said, "Neither was the intervention". The intervention was an intervention, not a point of order. That contrast was the whole point, and I thought that the Member would be aware of that.

To deal with the points that were raised, our focus, in budget and provision, should be on the most disadvantaged in our society, and the provision of places for those with special educational needs should be at the forefront of our thinking. Mr Lyttle raised the issue of sectors for which there is already encouragement and facilitation and asked what the problem would be if anything was added to that. If we have a situation in which one sector is advantaged because it has additional provisions, will adding further advantages make the situation better? No, it will not. Everybody should be treated equally. I mentioned yesterday that no child should be disadvantaged because of the school gates that it goes through. No child should be disadvantaged because of the choices made by its parents. The choices made by different parents will be equally valid, but, if we say that some are more equal than others, that is fundamentally wrong, and it goes to the very heart of the Bill and the amendment.

The amendments that replace "promotion" with "support for" are, in many ways, neither here nor there, because I am yet to hear anyone clarify the difference in law or in real meaning between the two. They give a distinction to one sector by comparison with any other and create a clear level of inequality. That inequality is not simply some form of debating-point semantics. As highlighted by the Minister, it leads to real resource implications for schools. Given where the schools budget is and the way that funding formulas go, an advantage for one sector or school and additional funding because of that will be at the expense of other schools. There is no other way to do it; we cannot have a virtuous circle.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Member for giving way. The words "encourage and facilitate" have, for many years, been in a duty for integrated and Irish-medium education school, yet we still have under 10% of the school population attending integrated education. How has that given integrated education a foot up or in any way changed the situation?

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

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

Parents make their choices. Some schools will be oversubscribed. For instance, as the Minister in 2020, I saw the implications of the oversubscription of post-primary schools. A range of schools were oversubscribed, including those that had gone down in numbers and those that had gone up, and that was across all sectors. Indeed, there was a controlled school in Belfast that probably had the biggest single increase in demand for places, so there will always be schools that are oversubscribed. Again, to those who argue that "support for" rather than "promotion" is a softer landing zone, I point out that no one has made the argument for why there should be any distinction. It is clearly and implicitly admitted that, when you have an additional duty that is not applicable to any other sector, you are not creating that level playing field that, surely, all of us should look for; rather, you create a situation in which one sector is advantaged over the others. That is the fundamental problem with the amendments that have been tabled on that matter and with clauses 4 and 5 in particular.

I turn to those clauses now. I should say that area planning has been one of the slow-burning success stories. We have started to see work going on between the sectors. For many years and not without a level of merit, there has been criticism that the education system has a silo mentality and that the sectors look after themselves. Obviously, they have to be advocates for their own sector, but, when it comes to the distribution of schools and school places, it is often said that the sectors operate with that silo mentality. Area planning is beginning to break that down, and it does so because every sector has a direct place at the table. That was made clear from the start, and it has been put into practice. It was in practice in 2016, when I was Minister, and it is in practice under the current Minister. She is driving an area planning process in which everyone is represented and in which we can, therefore, look for area solutions rather than sectoral solutions. We look for what is best for all the children in an area, and that, surely, is something that we should encourage. The problem with what is being put forward, particularly in clauses 4 and 5, is that it takes a step back from that and takes education in the wrong direction. In the same way, as we mentioned yesterday, dealing with one sector ahead of a broader review of education compartmentalises it and gets it the wrong way round. To have something that is focused purely on delivery for one sector and moves that sector outside the concept of area planning is a retrograde step.

Let us look again at the implications of clauses 4 and 5. Clause 4 is based on the idea of support for integrated education above all other sectors, as mentioned. There is a fundamental flaw there. Clause 5 is simply looking to meet demand, but, as part of that, it also places a duty of:

"aiming to increase the demand for the provision of integrated education".

That is not simply a matter of facilitating parental choice; it is saying that one sector is good and the rest are clearly less so and that there must be promotion of that sector. What are the implications of that for area planning and for the Education Authority? It suggests that it will come to any decision looking over its shoulder at what legal challenges could be made. That could lead to a minefield of legal challenges. That will, undoubtedly, influence the Education Authority's decisions.

The Education Authority is meant to encompass all sectors and every child in Northern Ireland. It is supposed to take an objective and neutral view and then decide and put forward proposals for area planning that are based on the merits of the individual application, but it will not be only that. Clause 5(1)(a) places a requirement of:

"monitoring the number and success of applications for integrated education".

Consequently, when the Education Authority looks at any proposal, it will say, "Is this helping us to meet our targets? Is it helping to increase figures?", rather than looking at the merits of the case.

I agreed with the Bill sponsor yesterday when she talked about ethos. She expressed a concern coming from within the integrated education sector that there would occasionally be some false converts to the cause of integrated education. From that perspective and given the different development proposals that I and the current Minister have looked at, some proposals for individual integrated schools have had merit and have been approved, and some have fallen short. I can think of at least one example — I am sure that the Member will agree — where a proposal for transformation to an integrated school was directly opposed by NICIE. I suspect that that is not unique. Yet, all those proposals — whether for an integrated, controlled or maintained school or on the basis of amalgamation, closure or changes in numbers — should always be treated entirely on merit. However, if the Education Authority is looking over its shoulder and knows that it has a duty to monitor the success of applications, that would clearly colour the approach that is taken. That is a flaw.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

Yes.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Does the Member agree that, as well as that, the practical application of clauses 4 and 5 over time would be to scythe through controlled and maintained primary schools? There will be a temptation for boards of governors to apply for integrated status as they attempt to save themselves from the inevitable axe that would be a consequence of the implementation of the clauses, and we may see many more of the false conversions that the Member referenced.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

If we look at applications to change to integrated status, we see that a lot of them are merited and the bulk are genuine. However, particularly in the context of wider pressure on budgets and the need to transform area planning, there will be schools that do it. The first headline that came out today was about EA's broad assessment that roughly 200 primary schools in Northern Ireland have fewer than 105 pupils. Rightly or wrongly, a lot of those schools will feel threatened and that the axe is poised over them. If they see that a particular badging of their school — unfortunately, it would be a form of badging in some cases —

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

Let me finish the point and I will give way in a moment.

There is a danger that some of those schools will simply grasp on to a transformation proposal and say, "We are an integrated school, and there is a duty to support such schools." Correctly or otherwise, they could feel much less vulnerable to any threat simply by adopting a label.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Thank you very much. It might come as a massive surprise to all that I agree with Mr Weir. No school should try to save itself by relabelling as a different one. That is why we have the updated definitions of integrated education and integrated schools that came forward yesterday. However, as you know, it is not as simple as asking to become integrated: they have to go through a process that should winnow out those who are doing it to save themselves.

Later today, in the debate on a different group of amendments, we will talk about clause 7 and the introduction of new schools. If a community wants to retain a primary school, there needs to be a wider conversation in that community about what type of primary school it should be. I agree with you completely. We have a lot of small schools. I am on record as saying in the House that the only primary school that should be protected is the one on Rathlin.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

The Member and I are coming close to agreement on something. I do not know which of us will have to lie down in a darkened room afterwards, but we will cross that bridge when we come to it.

The Member says that there is concern that, at times, genuine desires to transform become muddied by schools that see it as a lifeboat to preserve themselves, falsely so. The problem is that clauses 4 and 5, simply by saying that there needs to be support for integrated education and for those proposals and by placing an onus on the Education Authority to monitor the success of applications, will create a pressure. It may be felt that the easiest route is to support an application, even if it does not merit it. It will create nervousness, maybe, at department level, and it may be felt, "Well, perhaps the safest route is to agree this, irrespective of what the merits are." That is a fundamental flaw.

Members from different parties have mentioned an inherent contradiction. Saying that, for a school to be genuinely integrated, there should be a reasonable community mix in the numbers of Protestants and Catholics but, in taking those decisions, making no reference to — indeed, explicitly ignoring — the demographics of on area is inherently contradictory.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I will give way briefly.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I will explain that. There is a presumption in Northern Ireland that, if a person is brought up as a Catholic, that person must be a Catholic and want to go to a maintained school. There is a presumption that, if a person has grown up in the Protestant faith, that person is a Protestant. In fact, there are people such as me who do not want to be designated as anything. The religious demographics that are recorded assume that I am something that I do not want to be assumed to be. Religious demographics are a blunt tool to use. They are not as nuanced as the modern Northern Ireland is.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I will give way to my colleague.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

First, will the Member remember to correct the record? There is no such thing as a Protestant school. There are state controlled schools. Secondly, will she accept that sweeping generalisations, such as "Catholics go to Catholic schools and Protestants go to Protestant schools", are entirely wrong? I have been around for a long time. I went to a grammar school that, even in my day, was — naturally — a fairly integrated school. Why was it integrated then, and even more so now? My children went to the same grammar school. Why? It was a very integrated school, accepting pupils from all religions and all backgrounds, but they went there because it was a good school. That is what will drive parental choice.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

I take that point on board. It reflects what is quite often the case in a wide range of schools in the controlled sector but also the natural mixes that sometimes happen in the maintained sector. For example, at least about 35% or 40% of the pupils at St Columbanus' College in my former constituency have traditionally come from the Protestant community.

I take on board what Ms Armstrong says. If we are to make some assessment of the reasonable numbers test, however, and if that assessment is to be genuine, presumably it will not involve some confessional article of faith for each individual. With the greatest respect, schools, particularly primary schools, because, generally speaking, children go to the primary school in their local area, are likely to reflect the broad demographics of the area, so to say that those demographics are explicitly excluded from promotion somewhat beggars belief.

Clauses 4 and 5 are deeply problematic and deeply damaging. As the Minister has highlighted, a range of clauses in the Bill will place an unnecessary burden on schools, both because the consultation, by which I mean that direct engagement, is clearly already happening and information is being produced — indeed, structures are in place to ensure that it happens — and because, if we add unnecessary an burden to our finances for one sector and replicate what is already in place for it, we simply add to the pressures in education.

Anyone who has ever been in a position similar to that of the current Minister, and formerly me, knows that one of the greatest worries for Education Ministers — what sometimes keeps them awake at night — is the knowledge of where they are financially and of the pressures. It is not just an abstract concept. It is the knowledge that the lack of money means that we cannot make the maximum provision for our children. We should be looking to have the maximum front-line resources for all our children, irrespective of what school they go to, what religion or background they are from and whether they come from a completely secular background or from another religion. That should be the driver. The Bill envisages placing additional burdens on schools. I therefore urge Members to join in opposing clauses 4 and 5 in particular. We are not simply removing a particular issue, but through the Office of Legislative Counsel and the Minister's amendment, we have something that is more fit for purpose and ensures that, with regard to area planning in particular, we have equality and a much more collegiate, joined-up approach. Surely that is a direction that all of us should look to go in when it comes to education.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I rise to indicate my support for the amendments of my party colleagues and my opposition to clauses 4 and 5 standing part of the Bill. At the previous stage, when the measures were being debated — and I am loath to quote him again, but I will — the Member for Lagan Valley Mr Butler indicated that, "with certain tweaks", the Ulster Unionist Party would find the provisions of the Bill acceptable. I accept that the sponsor of the Bill certainly provided the tiniest of tweaks possible because the word "promote" was replaced with "support", but the dictionary definition of the word "promote" is to "support".

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for giving way. I do not have a degree or an A level in English literature, and often I lean into the dictionary to get an alternative word, and it will give you 15 alternative words. However, when you read them, you will see that, in context, sometimes they do not fit the narrative, and in this narrative the word has been changed and an explanation of the word has been given. So, when anybody reads the Bill, they will not have to go to the Oxford dictionary to see what the word means; it is given in the legislation. So, it is a moot point.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Promote means support and support means promote. The Member for Lagan Valley can dance on the head of a pin all he likes because the truth of the matter is that the Bill sponsor gave him nothing.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way briefly, please?

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

No.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Wise up, Chris.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I will give way later. Would you calm yourself? The Member needs to calm himself.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I shall give way once I make some progress. The Member needs to calm himself.

Support means promote, and promote means support. The Member can dance on the head of a pin all he likes, but let us be honest about the change that has taken place. In a previous debate, the Member for Upper Bann Mr O'Dowd gutted the content of the Bill and went through it clause by clause indicating how it was unacceptable. Other Members did the same, so how did we get to this point? Optics. This is for optics.

Parties that recognise the fundamental problems contained in clauses 4 and 5 are terrified to follow through on their convictions that they expressed in previous debates on the clauses for fear of being perceived to be against our children being educated together. I say to them that it is perfectly compatible to oppose the provisions of these clauses, which will raise one sector above others. It is perfectly compatible to oppose clauses 4 and 5 and still believe in our children being educated together.

Mr Gerry Campbell, the chief executive of the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools spoke on the issue and described it as a Bill that might create a "two-tiered" education system.

Bishop Donal McKeown said that it was:

"in many ways, a very radical piece of legislation and a very narrow piece of legislation."

He went on to say:

"All our schools intentionally promote and improve on an ethos of diversity and so on. The Bill simply says that that can be promoted in only one sort of school."

According to its content. That is my addition.

Mr Campbell said that:

"Catholic education is naturally inclusive and provides the opportunity for holistic growth, academic excellence and achievement for all. In a mature society, it is essential that parents, carers and learners have the freedom to exercise the right to articulate a preference for the school that best meets their needs and philosophical beliefs."

The delegation from the Transferor Representatives' Council (TRC) included Dr Andrew Brown and Karen Jardine from the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, Dr Peter Hamill from the Church of Ireland and Dr Anita Gracie from the Methodist Church in Ireland. Dr Gracie said that TRC is very much in favour of "educating the whole community together" and added that:

"controlled schools in areas of high ethnic and cultural diversity have become the most diverse school communities of any sector."

As a representative for South Belfast, I can attest to just how true that is. Just because a school does not have the word "integrated" on the sign over the door does not mean that it is not an inclusive school or that the children who go to it do not enjoy an inclusive educational experience that exposes them to other identities, cultures and traditions.

In its submission to the Committee, the Transferor Representatives' Council said that:

"To have a strategy for just one sector would create an imbalance, and focus valuable and scarce resources on one aspect of education, to the potential detriment of other children and young people in other sectors. Funding should be fair for all sectors and not be dedicated to only one sector. Funding might be better directed to targeting educational underachievement and seeking better educational outcomes across the school system, rather than focusing on one sector in particular."

The entire purpose of this legislation is to focus on one sector in particular. During earlier debates, the sponsor of the Bill — I am happy to give way and be corrected if I am wrong. If I am quoting you wrongly, I apologise, but I think on one occasion you said, "I am here to speak for the integrated sector". The sponsor of the Bill has never hidden the fact that she is here to speak for the interests of one sector. That is what lies at the heart of this Bill.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Certainly.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

For clarity, I draw to the Member's attention the fact that page 1 of the Bill says:

"A BILL TO Make provision about integrated education; and for connected purposes."

It is not in the scope of the Bill to talk about any other sector. That has been explained to me legally. The name of the Bill is "Integrated Education Bill".

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I do not dispute that. I suppose that I am trying to cut to the motivation rather than to the content, but I will get back to the content.

There is no doubt that this piece of legislation exists for the promotion of one sector. In my view, although not necessarily in the view of the Bill sponsor, that can only mean that it will be to the detriment of other sectors. That is particularly the case in the context of the announcement that we heard today that we need 2,000 special educational needs places in Northern Ireland. There are 200 schools that face closure because of the numbers, most of which are in rural communities. I wonder how many of those schools that are facing closure are in Strangford. We are dealing with finite budgets and all sorts of problems that are much wider than the integrated sector, and it is surely jumping the gun to try to ram this legislation through without considering the findings of the review of education, to which every party in this Chamber is committed.

I will go back to what the Transferor Representatives' Council said:

"The TRC regrets the perception created by this policy objective that sectors, other than the integrated sector, are not inclusive. The TRC would be interested to learn more about the engagement the Bill sponsor has had with the Initial Teaching Training providers on this specific proposal, and evidence which suggests that student teachers are not receiving instruction on how to be inclusive."

That was thrashed out a bit in the debate last night. There was an admission that the ethos of schools would be investigated to ensure that they were conforming to the expectations of the Bill sponsor. I have yet to see a school, anywhere in Northern Ireland, in which children have been inculcated in anything other than respect, tolerance and appreciation of diversity. It is unfair to the teachers — hard-working professionals — in all of the other sectors to suggest that those worthy goals can only be achieved through the vehicle of one sector, or that they can be achieved in a better way through the vehicle of one sector. I do not accept that.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. A previous DUP leader described education in Northern Ireland as benign apartheid.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's solution for that would be to promote one sector over all others, rather than for us striving for the worthy goal — I assume that we all believe in this goal — of trying to create a single educational aegis in which all our children are educated together. You will not achieve that goal by putting the integrated sector on steroids and promoting it to the disadvantage of everyone else. That will not achieve the goal. However, on the general principle, I absolutely agree that we should have a single educational sector that respects and values people's differences, but that goal of breaking down those divisions will not be achieved by this measure.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. I want to ensure accuracy. A lot is being said about the Bill's purport. It proposes to identify, assess and aim to meet demand for parental and pupil choice for integrated education. How does he propose that we educate children together? One proposal to advance that is through identifying, assessing and aiming to meet parental and pupil demand for integrated education. A lot has been said about the Bill. It is one attempt. What is his attempt? What is the DUP's proposal to advance children being educated together? It keeps saying that that is what it wants.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

There are two points. It does not say "aiming to meet"; it says "aiming to increase". The Member should read the Bill; it says "aiming to increase the demand". The Member knows the way in which increasing the demand will come about. I can think of situations where long-standing schools that have delivered quality education —

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

No. Just let me make some progress.

Good-quality schools have been delivering —

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

[Interruption.]

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

Sorry, there should not be any comments from seated positions while Members have the Floor.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

It demonstrates a deficiency in his argument that he has to resort to such behaviour, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

It demonstrates that you will not let me in.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I beg your pardon?

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

Sorry, I said that there should not be any comments from seated positions, please.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member has been here for much longer than I have. He really should know good manners.

The Bill refers to:

"aiming to increase the demand for the provision of integrated education".

I can point to examples around the place where long-standing controlled primary schools seeking new buildings do not get the new buildings, but the nearest integrated school gets a new building because of the existing obligation on the Department to promote integrated education. That is an advantage that the local controlled primary school does not enjoy. Due to the provisions that already exist — when you provide new buildings and facilities, people vote with their feet — the integrated school will grow, but the existing school, which has been providing education for generations in an area, will wither and die. I have seen examples of that happening because of the existing provisions, but the Bill says that those provisions, which exist in law, to promote integrated education do not go far enough.

If the legislation is passed, the consequences will be to discriminate against controlled and maintained schools. Rural constituencies, in particular, face all sorts of challenges in terms of school provision and numbers. I urge Members not to pass clauses 4 and 5. We all signed up to the review of education. The Alliance Party claims great credit for getting that in to New Decade, New Approach. Let that run its course. Do not jump the gun. There is a place for integrated education, but it should not be at the expense of controlled or maintained schools.

I will finish with this point. I am a parent. Parents have the right, and should continue to have the right, to send their children to a school of their choice. Fundamentally, clause 5 represents a threat to that right.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

In clauses 4 and 5, we come to the very heart of the Bill and can see clearly what it is trying to do, because it is here that we have the introduction of the singularly distinctive notion of promoting one sector over the others. Our starting point should be to remind ourselves what article 3 of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 says:

"It shall be the duty of the Department— (a) to promote the education of the people of Northern Ireland".

That is a generic and non-discriminatory requirement. It is one that applies to us all. The first duty is:

"to promote the education of the people of Northern Ireland".

The Bill radically deploys the language of promotion, which, of course, is proactive and applies it singularly to one sector of education. In doing that, it sets that sector apart and does so out of necessity, because you cannot promote one sector without setting it apart from all others. Whether you call it "promote" or "support", frankly, makes little difference.

In the coming weeks and months, other party leaders and I will go around this country promoting or supporting our candidates. What is the difference? To promote or support is to seek to give advantage. That is the essence of what is at play.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

When I have dealt with this point, I will give way.

I would say that, in fact, to "support" means more than to "promote", if you want to be semantic, because, to me, it suggests actively encouraging the giving of assistance. The whole essence of "support" is to give assistance. Therefore, when we say that for one sector and one sector only, does it mean that there is a requirement to give support and, if support includes giving assistance, that that includes elevated financial assistance? Is that really where we are going with that language of "promote" and "support"?

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way, unlike some other Members, regrettably. We do not have to speculate on or debate what either "promote" or "support" means: the clear proposal in the amendments — I thought that it was amendments that were debated at Consideration Stage — is that it would mean to identify, assess and aim to "meet" demand for integrated education. DUP Members and Mr Allister are in opposition to identifying, assessing and aiming to meet parental and pupil demand for integrated education.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I will deal with that. Whatever word you wish to use — "support", in the way in which you say that it is defined, or "promote" — in clause 5, we identify what the practical meaning of that is. It is a practical meaning, however it is expressed, that is exclusive to one sector. That is the point. It is in respect of only one sector that the clause wishes to identify, assess and monitor, all with the aim of meeting or increasing the demand for integrated education.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I will give way when I deal with this point. It is only in that one sector that we are giving that privilege. That is why clauses 4 and 5 create a hierarchy in education. Yesterday, I asked why it was necessary to give that hierarchal preference to one sector and not to others. That is the deliberate, conscious intent of clauses 4 and 5.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Member for giving way. I have not made this up. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has also called for the active promotion of a fully integrated education system and careful monitoring of shared education provision to ensure social integration. Recommendations were made to the UK Government in 2002, 2008 and 2016 to facilitate compliance with children's educational rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNCRC, which came into force in the UK in 1992. The UN Committee asked for the active and proactive promotion of a fully integrated education system. I have not made that up. I am reacting to international reports and to other reports that have come forward in Northern Ireland.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

If the United Nations, of whatever vogue, invites me to discriminate, I am sorry, but I will disappoint it in my approach to this matter. I will give way to Mr Stalford.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

The important word in the sentences that were just spoken by the sponsor of the Bill is "system". The Bill is not about the development of an education system; it is about putting one education sector on hyperdrive at the expense of all the rest.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Under the 1989 Order, we already have an education system that has a duty to "encourage and facilitate" integrated education. Obviously, that is not enough for the sponsor and her supporters. They want that sector, which is already feted with encouragement and facilitation, to be given more. What is the more? It is promotion and support; in fact, it is support to the point that clause 5(b) states that the Department must provide "sufficient places" and "meet the demand". Integrated education is to be demand-led. That does not apply to any other sector; only the integrated sector is to be demand-led. How does that not create preference and hierarchy for the integrated education sector. Of course, it does. That is the intent of the Bill. That is why the Bill is undeserving of the support of the House. In fact, it is undeserving of the ethos of the Alliance Party.

One of the dangers of wiling away the time here, waiting to be called to speak, is that you think of looking up things. I thought that I would take a look at the Alliance website and read the Alliance Party's vision statement. How apt it is. It states that the party believes:

"in a shared society, free from ... discrimination"

— except if you happen to be the controlled or maintained sector, it seems —

"where everyone is ... treated fairly"

— except if you are the controlled or maintained sector, it seems. Even by the standards of the Alliance Party, the sponsor's party, which are to treat everyone fairly, free from discrimination, the Bill fails the test, because it does not treat other sectors fairly. It advances, promotes and supports one sector above others. In doing so, it creates a discriminatory hierarchy in the education sector.

That is something that the House may well, in pursuit of the optics, as Mr Stalford said, embrace, but, in embracing that, it does no service to the education of our children or to fulfilling the primary duty of the Department towards the education of all the people of Northern Ireland. That really is the essence of the matter.

The Bill talks of

"providing sufficient places in integrated schools to meet the demand for integrated education".

We are going to change that to "aim to meet". Again, are we not playing with words? If there is a duty, "providing sufficient places" is its starting point. The aim is what has to be delivered. Again, nowhere else is that facility and leg-up given to any other sector. That inevitably will lead to privileged and additional — in comparison with others — expenditure on that sector. To meet that need and facilitate everyone who applies to Lagan College, Slemish College or wherever in getting a place, you will have to increase the facility and the financing of those schools. It is a passport to privilege for the integrated sector. That is the fundamental flaw in the Bill.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. That is a misrepresentation of the Bill. He referenced the key aim to promote the education of the people of Northern Ireland: for me, the heart of the Bill is about assessing, identifying, and meeting what the people of Northern Ireland want from education. In particular, as he said, it is about ensuring that we identify, assess and aim to meet the demand of parents and pupils who wish to access integrated education, given the difficulty that they have in accessing it at the moment. Surely, that is consistent with the key aim that he set out for the education of the people of Northern Ireland.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

When you say, "We want to facilitate the parental choice of those who want to access integrated education by guaranteeing them places", you prioritise meeting their parental choice over meeting the parental choice of those who choose every other sector. If the parental choice is to go to a maintained school, an Irish-medium school or a controlled school, there is no special privilege and no statutory obligation — that is what it is — to provide the places. However, if you want to go to an integrated school, the state will provide you with a statutory guarantee of access to that facility. That is social engineering. That does not afford a generic and equal system to all.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Member for giving way. As part of the work that I have done over the years on the Bill, I have considered how it works, especially from primary to post-primary schools. To assure him, when I spoke to many parents, two sectoral bodies and two different parts of the education landscape, it was confirmed that parents put down their preferences on their transfer papers. If someone has identified an integrated school and is not lucky enough to get into that school, there is no other integrated option to choose from; the rest of the options are maintained and controlled. I imagine that I could agree with Mr Allister if integrated education was provided and there was lots of availability across Northern Ireland, but the simple fact is that, when a child is not able to get into their local integrated school, it is very unlikely that they will stay in the integrated sector. They will have to go, against their parents' preference, into another sector. They will receive an excellent education, but the parental preference is not provided.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The way to deal with that is to not create privilege and special status for one sector. The Member seeks to say, "You will not be disappointed any longer about not getting into Lagan College. The Department and the Education Authority will make sure that there are an extra 200 places. They will make sure that the funding is provided for it. They will not make sure that there are an extra 200 places in the local high school, grammar school or anywhere else, but they will make sure that there are an extra 200 places in that specific sectoral school".

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

That is not treating people equally; that is honouring, at whatever cost, the parental choice of some while denying the parental choice of others.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Mr Stalford first and then Mr Butler.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Earlier in the debate, Mr Newton, a colleague of mine from East Belfast, referenced some research that was produced by the Assembly that said that — this is what I remember, and I am happy to correct the record if I am wrong — in excess of 95% of people who indicated a preference for an integrated school place got one. Secondly, does the Member agree that, when it comes to the allocation of places, it is wrong for integrated post-secondary schools to discriminate against children who did not go to integrated primary schools?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Yes. That appears so. The Bill will do nothing about that. That is clear.

Mr Butler, I think, wanted an intervention.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I ask the Member to come back to me in a minute or two, if that is OK. I will indicate when I am ready.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I am probably drawing to a close.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Do you want me to keep it going until 1.00 pm?

[Laughter.]

Do not encourage me.

Yes, Mr Weir.

Peter Weir (DUP, Strangford)

The Member has raised preferential treatment and has indicated the financial implications. One of the things that have not been mentioned about resources is that, while the focus has been on the direct shift of the pupil premium and the additional in-year budget needs, where there are significant increases in numbers at a school, there will be capital implications. In the same way as a resource shift will take money from other schools to their detriment, if additional capital is required to build extra facilities such as classrooms or whatever, that will be taken out of the capital budget, which will be detrimental to every other school budget.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I follow that, and that is absolutely right. Of course, once you provide privilege to some, you have to disadvantage others out of the limited and finite budget that the Department has to operate with. When you say, "give advantage" to the integrated sector, you effectively say, "and balance it with disadvantage to the others", and that is what the House has been asked to embrace: disadvantage for some and advantage for others.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for giving way. To be fair to him, the Member, unlike the Members behind and beside me, refers to the amendments. The Members behind and beside me seem to refer implicitly to the Bill as it was tabled. You have raised a really good point and one that I agree with about how schools in the controlled and maintained sector would be treated if an integrated school did not have the number of places. However, there is an important amendment — it is amendment No 22, which Mr McCrossan will move — that takes away religious demographics and spare places at other schools, which means that no other school would be disadvantaged in that case.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

We have not heard any indication from other parties in the House whether Mr McCrossan's amendment, which he may not even move, as he did yesterday, is acceptable or whether it is acceptable to the Bill sponsor. We do not know that. I would not put too much faith in that amendment doing much. It certainly cannot rescue the fundamental issue of clauses 4 and 5: their elitism.

Clauses 4 and 5 are all about elitism. They are about advantage in order to disadvantage. That is why that is an unworthy heart of a Bill that itself is deserving only of rejection. On a day when area planning announcements are made on the premise of our existing provisions, along comes a proposed change in legislation that will alter all of that, adding hugely to costs and redefining all future planning. It gives no consideration to anyone or anything but the cherished, privileged and elite group of the integrated sector. That is wrong.

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

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I, therefore, propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The first item of business when we return will be Question Time to the Minister for Communities.

The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 12.56 pm.

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

Oral Answers to Questions — Communities

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I advise Members that questions 1 and 12 have been withdrawn.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

2. Mr M Bradley asked the Minister for Communities how many applications have been processed for the emergency fuel payment scheme, which opened on 6 January 2022. (AQO 2966/17-22)

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

7. Ms Kimmins asked the Minister for Communities for an update on the emergency fuel payment scheme. (AQO 2971/17-22)

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I intend to answer questions 2 and 7 together. The unprecedented energy prices this year and, indeed, last year have meant that those who are already struggling financially are facing added pressures. I am aware that, without additional support, many individuals, particularly those on low incomes, may struggle to heat their home or pay their energy bills. That is why, on 13 January, I announced that I had secured £55 million for an energy payment support scheme for individuals on low incomes who are struggling to meet the rising energy costs owing to the global fuel crisis. The scheme provides for a one-off payment of £200 to be made automatically, without the need for an application, to around 280,000 eligible individuals who are in receipt of specified benefits.

I also recognised that there was a need for a smaller complementary fund to be delivered quickly for people who are in immediate crisis: people and families who are at risk of disconnection or who have been disconnected; and people who need immediate help. On 29 December, I was therefore delighted to announce that my Department will contribute £2 million to an emergency fuel payment scheme that is operated by Bryson Charitable Group. The scheme is a collaboration among the Utility Regulator, the Consumer Council and a number of energy providers. I thank all those organisations for their work on, and contributions to, the scheme.

The scheme will deliver targeted emergency support to those in fuel crisis and who have a temporary inability to meet their fuel costs. As at the close of play on 14 January, 2,358 applications had been made, of which 1,323 applications had been validated and found eligible, and 1,098 applicants had received their fuel payment. Bryson Charitable Group expects to process around 300 to 400 applications a day, although that will be subject to constant review.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I ask the Minister to pause there. She will be able to give the rest of the information in answer to a supplementary question.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

OK.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for the comprehensive answer. Perhaps we will hear the rest of it later.

Minister, it is my understanding that over 300,000 homes throughout Northern Ireland are eligible, yet only 300 applications are being processed each day. People are experiencing frustration when they try to get on to the website or get through by phone. I think that we will be in this situation for some time to come, so is it apt for you to look at setting up a multi-agency task force to deal with the problem immediately and on an ongoing basis?

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I look at the ongoing issues. I have met representatives from a variety of organisations, and simply setting up a task force will not deal with the immediate problem. We have fuel poverty in our society, and we are looking at action plans and the housing revitalisation programme to start to address the longer-term, systemic issues, but, at this point, we are also in a global fuel crisis. Those other programmes will mitigate the impact, but they will not overcome the issues that we face. The bigger issue is that the Bryson Charitable Group scheme was intended to target only 20,000 individuals, and it was always to be in addition to the £55 million scheme, which will target 280,000 individuals over the next period.

We have also paid out the winter fuel payment to just under 300,000 pensioners. Those payments went out in November and December. We have other supports, such as the discretionary support scheme, for those who find themselves in crisis, but we also need to see larger government responses. The Finance Minister wrote to the British Government about the removal of VAT on energy bills. I have been pushing for us to press the British Government again for a response. The Economy Minister has responsibility for energy policy, and a paper on that is out for consultation at the moment. We are going to the British-Irish Council meeting on 4 February to look at the rising cost of energy. We will make those specific asks on VAT and other issues at that meeting.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for such a comprehensive answer. With the unprecedented pressures from the spiralling fuel costs that we are all seeing, the schemes that she mentioned are very welcome and important to support and assist people and families who are struggling at the minute with the cost-of-living crisis. On your last points, Minister, would you, therefore, agree that this cost-of-living crisis that we are all witnessing and experiencing is so significant that it is at a level where we need to see urgent action by the British Government?

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Definitely. Somebody is making profit out of these rising costs, and it is not people who are living here. Obviously, people across the globe are struggling. That is why governments that have the necessary tax powers have to take further action. As I said, the Finance Minister has written to the British Government about VAT. That is one quick way that people would see an impact on their bills, and it would apply to all households that pay bills. Many organisations in England, Scotland and Wales have been calling for that. It was discussed at the Executive meeting last week. I hope that, as a united Executive, we can continue to put that pressure on the British Government to act in that regard.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

If someone successfully applies to the emergency fund, are they then also eligible for the energy payment support scheme? Is there any household limit in respect of either scheme?

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

If you are applying for the Bryson scheme, you will still get the automatic payment, because the Bryson scheme is to deal with an immediate potential threat of losing fuel support or being cut off or disconnected. As part of the process of applying for that, applicants have to provide evidence. Bryson has been working to make that better understood in advance of someone making an application. That system is being developed as the scheme begins to roll out.

On the other hand, with the other payments, my main function was to target those on the lowest incomes, and that would be those in receipt of means-tested benefits. That is 281,000 individuals. They will be the ones who will receive a direct payment of £200 without application, which will be paid directly into their bank or Post Office accounts, or whatever accounts they highlighted to receive their benefits.

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

Thank you, Minister, for your answers so far. Would you accept that failure to communicate details of the £2 million emergency fuel scheme before its launch resulted in widespread confusion and frustration?

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I agree that some media coverage has led to an expectation or perception. Of course, there is learning in terms of front-loading the information, even on the system. The Department, in working with Bryson, has been quickly adapting to that.

Some may have heard the head of Bryson on the radio this morning talking about the unprecedented demand. A scheme that is targeting 20,000 people, with 280,000 trying to contact it, will never be fit for purpose in that way. It was never intended to do that. The larger fuel support scheme of £55 million is to try to get to as many households as possible.

I tried to extend that scheme, for example to look at the issue of tax credits, but because that is a reserved matter, it has to be for HMRC to advise. When we requested that it make the payment, it said that it could not make the payment; it would need a change in primary legislation, and that would be done outside this financial year, when the money needs to be spent.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

The Minister and her colleagues highlighted the unprecedented scale of the cost-of-living crisis that we are facing. We are all of the mind that that will last for many years, unfortunately. Will the Minister outline the Department's long-term strategy to deal with that? As such, has it given consideration to the introduction of the warm homes discount?

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

There is obviously the fuel poverty strategy, which is about warmer, healthier homes. We will be looking to upgrade the strategy, and that is one of the key areas that we will be looking at over the next period. As I said previously in the Chamber — I know that the Committee has heard it as well — we want those to align with the Executive's energy strategy and the green growth strategy in looking at the holistic issues. I know that some of those have been produced, so my officials are engaging with officials in DAERA and in the Department for the Economy to bring forward a scheme.

Of course, we are engaging with sectors. I have met a number of organisations. In terms of the immediate crisis, we have received numerous pieces of correspondence from different organisations that want to help. We are looking at what we need to do over the next period. Of course, the whole area around the housing revitalisation will be a fundamental piece in ensuring that homes are fit for purpose, because there has been decades of underinvestment, for example, in Housing Executive stock, where energy is just being released. It is about that whole system and the fundamental approach in looking at this. Of course, we continue to engage the Utility Regulator, the Consumer Council and others as we start to move forward on those longer-term, systemic areas.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I appreciate that other Members are rising in their place, but we are 10 minutes into Question Time now, so I am going to move on.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

3. Ms Bunting asked the Minister for Communities whether she will introduce a grant scheme for community organisations to celebrate Her Majesty The Queen’s platinum jubilee. (AQO 2967/17-22)

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

As with all Departments, the resources available to the Department for Communities are extremely limited. I will continue to prioritise the resources that I have towards protecting the most vulnerable and providing support to hard-pressed families, workers and their families. Therefore, I have no plans to introduce a grant scheme related to the Queen's platinum jubilee. However, community organisations may be able to apply to existing funding schemes for financial support towards programmes or activities. DFC provides funding to the 11 councils for the community festivals fund, and councils provide match funding and administer the scheme on behalf of the Department. Organisations may be able to apply through that resource.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

Does the Minister recognise that many far beyond unionism respect and admire Her Majesty and would participate in community celebrations? Does she see that this is an opportunity for community cohesion and would bring some light to a very terrible situation for those vulnerable people to whom she referred? Does she understand that this is international and historic and so is bigger than local government? Why will she not establish a fund?

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Of course, there are many people here who see the British monarchy in a very respectful way and who support that, and, of course, the jubilee is a key occasion. As you say, it is of a much larger scale, and that is why, up until now, the responsibility for funding and putting resources in place to mark these events has been with the British Government.

There are many events in our community and across society that we could mark if requests came to my Department to do that. I have to manage all those with the budget that I have and consider the need. We are talking about a fuel crisis. We have pressure around homelessness services. We have pressures in our community and voluntary sector as well, and I have to prioritise where I put resources. I do put money out on an annual basis through the community festivals fund that goes to local government, and that is how I allocate money to mark events across the board. Money does go out, but it goes via local government. There is no central fund to fund any of these programmes, whether it is a jubilee or any other key event that may be important to sections of our community. Therefore, I ask organisations to contact their local councils, or, indeed, the British Government, who have been running out programmes to mark this event.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Minister, I preface my question by saying that I respect the right of those who wish to celebrate the jubilee later this year. In response to Joanne, I also respect the Queen. I think that she has played a positive role in the peace process and in reconciliation on the island of Ireland. However, you have just spent the start of Question Time outlining the problems and the crises faced by many families across our entire society. Minister, is it not a priority to ensure that those who have least are given protection at this time, rather than using funds in this way? I know that Craigavon council is spending £250,000 on jubilee celebrations.

I will come to my point. Minister, is it not the priority at this stage to support those families that are most in need?

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Totally, the Queen has played a positive role and is a very important figure to a large section of our community here.

I have no doubt that, funding or no funding, they will mark and celebrate the occasion across the board.

My priority — I have been consistent on this — is to protect the most vulnerable in our communities through targeted funding. That is not to say that events like that do not have a role. However, I direct funding to councils for the celebration of festivals and occasions. I do that for a number of programmes. I have been approached about a number of significant events that sections of our community feel are important, and they have been directed to the same local government process. The funding that I retain in the Department is used to focus on protecting services around fuel, which we have been looking at, housing and homelessness and the organisations that work with those who face financial hardship at this time.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Minister is styled as the "Minister for Communities". Why is it, then, that, when it comes to issues such as this, she can never face the plurality of that title and take off her republican blinkers and recognise that her duty to all communities is to fund such matters? This is a Minister who squandered millions on golf clubs.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I am the Minister for Communities, and I know and have been to many communities in which the people come from a unionist or, indeed, a British tradition and have respect for The Queen. Their key issues at this time are the cost-of-living crisis, education, health and homelessness. Of course, those are the issues to which I respond. I have delivered schemes right across the board and right across all communities, and I have never looked once at their background, unlike some who ask questions about someone's religious background. I deliver schemes across the board to those who need them most. That is what I will continue to do in the time ahead. We are in a cost-of-living crisis. We have spoken about the fuel crisis. That is my priority at this time.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

[Inaudible]

centenary in Belfast.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Order. Members have the right to ask questions, and the Minister has the right to expect to be heard.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

4. Mr Delargy asked the Minister for Communities for an update on the Strathfoyle greenway project. (AQO 2968/17-22)

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I was delighted to recently announce that my Department will provide funding of £440,000 towards the Strathfoyle greenway project. My Department has been investing in the urban greenway network for several years. Supporting the Strathfoyle community greenway is a natural extension of that work and adds to my Department's excellent track record of developing those types of projects. The 2·7-kilometre extension to the popular Waterside greenway will link Stradowen Drive in Strathfoyle to Derry city centre and the wider greenway network. It will also provide a commuting route to Foyle port and Maydown.

I can advise that the full funding package is now in place, and Derry City and Strabane District Council will lead on delivering the greenway in partnership with my Department, DFI and DAERA. The project is a great example of the partnership between various Departments, the council and, indeed, local communities. At present, the procurement process for a contractor is under way. It is anticipated that the contractor will be appointed in February, with construction beginning in March this year.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for her answer and her commitment to the project. It will be fantastic to see that in Derry, given the benefits for not just people's health and well-being but connectivity, which the Minister mentioned. I will be pleased to see it. The Minister highlighted the collaborative work between local government and the Assembly. Are there any other similar projects in the Foyle constituency?

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

We have a number of projects in the north-west, including the Harbour Square public realm project, the inner walled city public realm project and the Strabane town centre public realm project. A number of schemes and initiatives are under way, and a number of planned schemes are being looked at. Of course, we are also looking to take forward larger schemes such as Fort George and other initiatives.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for her action. I was delighted to hear the announcement about her approval of the final piece of the funding jigsaw for that project, which has been years in gestation. Now we just have to put all those pieces together.

This is, as others said, a great example of cross-departmental collaboration and work with the council and the community. Will the Minister undertake to continue to work with other Departments to ensure delivery for our rural communities?

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Definitely. There has been excellent work over the past two years through the conversations that I have had with the Infrastructure and AERA Ministers. We have collaborated and put together money that is targeted at rural settlements and communities, and we have done a few programmes on the COVID response. This programme is an extended part of that partnership, and I want to continue to work with those two Departments in particular and, indeed, any Department to look at how we can share resources to really meet the needs of local communities. The partnership has been really good, and I want to continue to see that develop in the time ahead.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

5. Mr Chambers asked the Minister for Communities to outline the outcome of any discussions her Department has had with the GAA regarding the additional funds required for the redevelopment of Casement Park. (AQO 2969/17-22)

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

The Member will be aware that a judicial review (JR) has been taken against the Department for Infrastructure’s decision to grant planning permission. The draft full business case of November 2019 identified potential increased cost estimates due to delays to planning approval, construction inflation and repeated design stages. This increased cost estimate will now need to take account of any delays as a result of the judicial review. Discussions have been taking place and will continue with the GAA in respect of all those and associated matters, including the apportionment of any projected increased project costs. Currently, there is no proposed change to the £15 million contribution already committed to the project by the GAA.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

Minister, there is a growing perception in some soccer circles, which I am sure is misplaced, that the delay in releasing funding under the subregional stadia programme is linked to the ongoing Casement Park funding situation. Given that the Minister indicated last summer that release of the subregional funding was close, will she give any reassurance of a timely sign-off in this mandate of this funding?

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

There is no connection between the two issues other than they deliver sports for local communities. I have a brother who is involved in soccer programmes, so, from his work in Belfast, I see at first hand the role that sport plays for young people, particularly men, in communities. There had to be a refresh exercise of the subregional stadia programme because its initial proposal was over a decade out of date. Even the most recent consultation in 2016 was almost five years out of date when I came into post, so I needed to do a refreshment exercise. We are looking at the analysis of that. In particular, we are looking at the impact of the pandemic because I started that exercise before COVID had fully hit, and, obviously, the pandemic has had an impact not just on football but across all sports. I am still considering that information, and I am hopeful that I can move as quickly as possible after that.

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Minister, the redevelopment of Casement Park will be a significant investment and will provide a much-needed economic and cultural boost to west Belfast. Do you agree that that is exactly the type of tangible and transformative investment that people want to see the Executive delivering?

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Definitely. I played in Casement Park as a young camóg, as, I am sure, you did. We see the grounds sitting as they are at the moment, and a generation of Gaels and, indeed, those who play other sports have come up not having had the experience. You can see the wider community benefits that the developments at Windsor and Kingspan have had. There are benefits for the sports concerned and the clubs from a grassroots level right up to a more competitive level, and there are benefits to health and well-being. There are benefits to the local economy not just through construction but through the fact that businesses will be driven to an area like this because of footfall. We can see our transportation system being aligned to developments such as this. When Casement is built, it will have positive benefits not just for west Belfast or Belfast but across the North.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I agree with the Member for North Down's call for urgency in the delivery of the subregional stadia funding. There is no doubt that the hampering of funding is affecting the progression and modernisation of many local clubs. The Minister will know that, with costs for the eventual end-project delivery of Casement Park spiralling, there is, rightly, a call for increased funding from the GAA. Does the Minister agree with her stand-in and predecessor, Carál Ní Chuilín, who said that it was no longer "tenable" for the GAA to hold the position that it would not increase its funding allocation?

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I will continue to engage with the GAA on a range of matters pertaining to the redevelopment of Casement Park, and I will continue to keep that under review.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Football clubs across Northern Ireland are delivering high-quality grassroots participation and performance football, including high-quality games screened live by international broadcasters to a worldwide audience, such as the fantastic game between Cliftonville and Glentoran last night. They are doing so, however, in decades-old facilities that have had no public investment. Will the Minister assure the House that the subregional stadia funding that is so dearly needed will be released prior to the end of this mandate?

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

The funding for the subregional stadia is still there, and that will continue to be the case. I am working at pace to look at the issues. Football and the stadiums make a real contribution to communities. Some are in a state of disrepair, which you see when you visit them, and I recognise that the £36·2 million that has been allocated will not be anywhere near enough.

I have always spoken about the potential need for a stage 2, which would look at other sports too, because demand is coming from rugby and other sports and, indeed, Gaelic games at grassroots level. We will continue to keep that under review. I am moving at pace on the refreshment exercise that was done, taking into account in particular the impacts of COVID and any new types of stadia design that may need to be looked at. I will continue to move that as quickly as I can. The funding is still there. It is a commitment from the Executive, and it will be delivered.

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

Kilcoo, the Down senior football team, won the Ulster Championship at the weekend. That game should have been played in the Belfast stadium, as planned. There is a shortfall in the GAA and a big void in senior games. Will you undertake to bring such games back to the stadium in Belfast as quickly as possible?

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

The redevelopment of Casement Park is not just an Executive priority; it is a priority across the board, particularly for Gaels across Ulster and beyond. I get that message through my engagements with the GAA. I want to get it done as quickly as possible. Obviously, there are now legal proceedings, and we have to wait for the outworking of those. That has had a knock-on effect on completing the business case — we need the planning and all that to be finalised — but, as soon as we know the direction of travel of the legal process, we will move at pace to get everything completed in order to build Casement Park as soon as possible.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

6. Ms Sheerin asked the Minister for Communities to outline the pay and conditions for staff in the voluntary and community sector, announced on 15 December 2021. (AQO 2970/17-22)

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

In line with my announcement and ministerial statement of 15 December 2021, over £2·1 million has been made available to help employing organisations to improve the terms and conditions of the voluntary and community sector posts that are funded through my Department. That has been focused on allocations to allow employing organisations to ensure alignment with the most recent rate of real living wage of £9.90 per hour; a consolidated 2% increase on the current level of support provided by the Department for salaried posts, which has been calculated after ensuring that the real living wage increase is met; a 7% non-consolidated payment, which has been calculated following applications of the previous two steps; and an increase in support to allow for an increase in employers' pension contributions from the Government's recommended level of 3% to 5%.

In addition, effective from 1 January 2022, funded organisations are no longer required to inform the Department of short-term sickness absences of up to five working days for employees who are in posts that are supported by my Department.